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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,f292779560fb8442 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,af40e09e753872c X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f8c65,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf8c65,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1008e3,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Hungarian notation Date: 1996/06/06 Message-ID: <4p5qsj$f2v@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 158733159 references: <31999F43.41C67EA6@scn.de> <4p45kd$ea0@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.edu,comp.lang.eiffel nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-06-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: z007400b@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Ralph Silverman) writes: > in developing software code > one must satisfy a > compiler > or such... Source code has at least two functions: - to instruct the computer how to solve a problem - to explain to a maintenance programmer how come it works I have just been marking a number of student assignments, many of which "satisfied the compiler" (the compiler did not produce any error messages; the programm appeared to work on one test case) but were seriously wrong about several points (typically if the slightest thing failed the programs would go "insane"). In fact many of the programs did _not_ satisfy _my_ compiler (lint && gcc -ansi -pedantic -O2 -Wall ...); the reason the programs _appeared_ to satistfy the compiler was that they didn't ask the compiler to check very much. > would it not be preferable to > develop patterns of thought > that work with the system than > with the arbitrary preferences > of a teacher! Ah, but the teachers' preferences are NOT arbitrary! *all* of the effective programmers I know write their comments first, explaining what the code is for and how come it works, and then write the code to fit the comments. Except in the smallest of student assignments, a programmer has to worry a *lot* about communicating with other *people*, and even in student assignments, a program that ``works'' is of little use if the teacher can't understand it. -- Fifty years of programming language research, and we end up with C++ ??? Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ok; RMIT Comp.Sci.