From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,577df5d4a0e88785 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-06 11:53:16 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news-out.usenetserver.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail From: Lao Xiao Hai Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Bad coding standards Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 11:45:52 -0800 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: <3A5775F0.78F85D47@ix.netcom.com> References: <91b9ma$bne$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A3E36C4.3466A19C@averstar.com> <3A3E5E7E.67817482@acm.org> <91o028$vp2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A3F8E88.317C9FDB@acm.org> <3A40ACF8.9A35BAB8@acm.org> <8l306.14463$bw.1203427@news.flash.net> <3A428FE5.30747FF6@acm.org> <3A538253.FBBA818A@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 3f.35.b3.93 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Date: 6 Jan 2001 19:48:38 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3711 Date: 2001-01-06T19:48:38+00:00 List-Id: Has anyoe ever noticed that the people who no longer write code are often the ones most compelled to make up rules for those who do? IBM used to have a little monthly publication called THINK. In a 1964 article in THINK, some writer, whose name is now lost in the obscure recesses of my faltering synapses, wrote, "The last act of a dying organization is to enlarge the rulebook." I have witnessed this in action over the years. For example, when a company is in financial trouble, the Human Resources Department begins to enforce a "dress code." When we run out of ideas for new software products, we often allow an organization to coagulate into a tangle of well-intentioned standards that serve to inhibit rather than stimulate creativity. Then we set up a standards group that intimidates everyone else into a lock-step process that ensures nothing interesting will ever be accomplished. I am not opposed to standards, per se. However, I sometimes think that Bill Joy of Sun Microsystems is correct when he observes that those organizations that depend too much on standards often become less innovative and consequently, less competitive. There has to be some happy medium between regulation and anarchy in the pursuit of effective software practice. Richard Riehle Wes Groleau wrote: > > There are people in the world who are "Control Freaks" or who demand that "The > > Law Is The Law!" and you often have to be careful about how they are going to > > look at what you write down. Style *should* be something that is consistent and > > details help, but you also want a lot of leeway to wiggle if there are reasons > > to do so. IMHO, a reliable and properly functioning piece of software that is > > delivered on time is more important than a really pretty piece of software that > > doesn't work right and/or is late. Strict adherence to style does not > > necessarily move the mission forward. > > The problem is when allowing "wiggle room" results in > difficult-to-read-and-maintain software because certain > people will not apply common sense--it has to be applied > by force from outside. > > Our solution: Move a few of the "guidelines" bullets in AQS > into "standards" bullets. Then define "standard" or "shall" > as "non-compliance requires a waiver signed by _____" and > define "guideline" or "should" as "non-compliance requires > approval from a peer review team." > > We also significantly revised AQS. Some things we didn't > agree with, others we thought unclear, and it was surprising > how many examples were non-compliant. (Principle of technical > writing--given an unambiguous requirement in prose and a > non-binding example, if they disagree, the example will be followed.) > > -- > Wes Groleau > http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau