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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/02 Message-ID: <6skgj4$mcv$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387266991 References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x14.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.160.8.44 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Sep 02 22:24:36 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.18 i586) Date: 1998-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: A further thought on this: In article <6simjo$jnh$1@hirame.wwa.com>, "Robert Martin" wrote: > In any case, I note that in this thread nearly every article that advocates > multiple exits evokes either readability, complexity, or naturalness as the > justification. I contend that these are highly subjective things, that are > not shared by all programmers alike. Indeed, what is readable, natural and > simple to me, may be opaque and convoluted to you. I agree with the truth of this, but not with the implication that this makes the arguments invalid. It makes sense to me that code that is more readable, less complex, and more natural (to me) is code that is more maintainable (by me). If this is correct, then it follows that there is no one coding style that will be the most maintainable for *all* programmers who have to read the code. So arguments about whether this or that style is better may well be pointless. If that's the case, then the only real basis for arguing is that we should program in the way that will have the best chance of being maintainable by the greatest number of programmers who might be maintaining the code. This would indicate that the only arguments that are useful are those that are based on empirical studies of what people consider more "natural"---something like an opinion poll, I guess. That would mean that all the theoretical arguments about "loss of state information" or "goto's going to an undefined place" or "fractional loop iterations" or whatever are irrelevant. However, in this thread, we've had lots of attempts at logic and theory to demonstrate why one style is better than the other, and just one reference to any empirical study. -- Adam -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum