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: 146b77,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid146b77,public X-Google-Thread: f5d71,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gidf5d71,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,d275ffeffdf83655 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Ada vs C++ vs Java Date: 1999/01/17 Message-ID: <77t241$mnj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 433646207 References: <369C1F31.AE5AF7EF@concentric.net> <369DDDC3.FDE09999@sea.ericsson.se> <369e309a.32671759@news.demon.co.uk> <369F1D39.64A65BC1@sea.ericsson.se> <369f81a9.31040093@news.demon.co.uk> <77ommt$9bo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <77q57g$dpu$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36A12D50.9604A0B0@cs.nyu.edu> <77rjbk$7d0@drn.newsguy.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x15.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 129.37.79.155 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 17 16:11:49 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.vxworks,comp.lang.java,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-01-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <77rjbk$7d0@drn.newsguy.com>, bill@north.nospam.com.net wrote: > As for the issue at hand, nowadays there are plenty of > automated tools to reformat the source code in any shape > one prefers. so it is not a problem. When you need to > work on the code, reformat it as you prefer, work > on it and check it in. The other person can check the > code later, reformat it as they want and work on it. > I've done this myself on C/C++ code working with other > programmers each prefer different way of formating. and > we never had any problem. This is often trotted out as an argument, but it is in practice bogus for several reasons: 1. Massive reformatting like this tends to disturb the sources and not be completely reversible. This will lead to bogus differences between successive versions, which cause trouble in practice. 2. Many coding rules are not susceptible to completely automated translation (e.g. going from all upper case to mixed case identifiers with exceptions for acronyms). 3. You still have the problem of each programmer having a distinct style, so code tends to belong to given programmers, and the fact that programmers dislike one another's style is an unnecessary source of confusion and friction. 4. Programmer's get careless, and unless this multi-style approach is truly automated, someone will put code into someone elses program in the wrong style causing annoyance. 5. Ideally, simple things like bracket placement can be checked with automatic tools that are part of the CM system, or even the compiler. For GNAT, we have a compiler option to check style rules, and everyone is required to use it. All these problems, JUST because some programmer has such a big ego, or is so stubborn that they can't adopt a simple set of style rules? In my experience, programmers who are this individualistic are likely to be poor team members in any case, and as I said in my first post, I simply would not tolerate this kind of behavior. Once again, such programmers may be the heroes of CMM level 1, but the whole point of the CMM, even at level 2, is to get rid of this kind of nonsense! -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own