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: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-06 04:30:55 PST Message-ID: <3B1E1452.BAFAAB7F@baesystems.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:30:26 +0100 From: David Gillon Organization: BAE SYSTEMS Avionics (Rochester) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? References: <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com X-Trace: 6 Jun 2001 12:21:57 GMT, rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!rc3284.rochstr.gmav.gecm.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:10418 comp.lang.ada:8223 comp.lang.awk:2814 comp.lang.clarion:21206 comp.lang.java.programmer:74005 comp.lang.pl1:808 comp.lang.vrml:3545 Date: 2001-06-06T12:30:26+01:00 List-Id: Pete Thompson wrote: > >In my estimation, the issue of "readability" is far more important for > >someone *new* to a project and/or *new* to the language. Can they walk in > >the door and get up to speed more quickly (thus making more money for the > >stockholders) if we rely on "terse" languages/notations or will they become > >productive faster if the language/notations are more verbose, rely less on > >non-obvious semantics, have better comments, etc.? > > Hmm.. I'd have to say that I agree and disagree. It really depends on what > industry you're in. If you're in the kind of industry where you're hiring > newbie programmers all the time, then yes, it's important to be as explicit as > possible. However, there are industries where programmers MUST be experienced > before they're hired. Does it really make sense to make your code as > newbie-ish as possible for them? (Again, without being cryptic). Explicit, readable coding has value even when being read by the most experienced of software engineers. Consider the case of a safety critical system under review by an external auditor prior to certification. It's vital he be able to review the system in as thorough a manner as possible in the time available, yet he may be completely new to your coding standards and practices. The logic of a decision needs to be clearly laid our for him, not something he needs to delve into the musty depths of obscure documents for or to seek information on from the original coder (especially if the original coder is in a substantially different timezone). Equally, someone may have to fix your code twenty years down the tracks, when the original coding team and the rationale behind their decisions may have long since vanished (or walked in front of a bus...). Explicit pays, maybe not now, maybe not directly, but in the end its a worthwhile investment. -- David Gillon