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=2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS, INVALID_MSGID,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC 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: f8c65,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gidf8c65,public X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1008e3,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,30e368bdb3310fe5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: 101635.170@compuserve.com (Richard Green) Subject: Re: Hungarian notation Date: 1996/06/22 Message-ID: <4qe696$6t7@arl-news-svc-5.compuserve.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 161377642 references: <31999F43.41C67EA6@scn.de> <4p5qsj$f2v@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4p9cia$9v3@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us> <4pioot$kae@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4pk29i$nhj@tpd.dsccc.com> organization: (No org) reply-to: 101635.170@compuserve.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.modula2,comp.edu,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1996-06-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: kcline@sun132.spd.dsccc.com (Kevin Cline) wrote: >Maybe we should have a contest to find the worst examples of professionally >produced C++ code? >-- >Kevin Cline Aren't we missing the point here ? Surely coding standards ( notatation, naming conventions etc.) differ for every piece of code one writes - for example, if I want to write a trivial c program to do strip something from the input and do something "interesting" on the output side (i.e. a sort of unix "tail -f | grep | etcetc", I'll probably write it using one character var names, if's without {}, and all those other possible but bad practice things, however, if I'm writing a piece of code for a client which does something even more trivial, I'll name the function logically, comment it , date it, perhaps even write a list of presuppositions, maybe even put the prefix p_ before every pointer variable if they want me to. After all, they're paying the rent. Being a good programmer isn't just coding, in fact I think I spend only 20% of my time coding "at the keyboard", and some of the time thinking about all the ramifications over my code when it gets released, _including_ the support and maintenance issues, but probably the majority planning and designing. When it comes to the debate on this thread, the expression "Horses for courses" springs to mind. Richard. #include +----------------------------------------------------------------+ These fews are mine and I reserve the right to argue against them at a later date when I realise that sometimes I can make mistakes. Richard Green - 101635,170@compuserve.com (or is it compu$$$$$e ?! :) +----------------------------------------------------------------+