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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,259541b8a8a12b6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-21 23:00:23 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!portc03.blue.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: mark_lundquist@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bad coding standards - aesthetics are irrelevant
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:45:47 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <91utar$kk9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <LPBBLLGPHODFBNGLFGJDMELNCBAA.singlespeeder@btinternet.com>
 <3A429639.53D3EA9E@acm.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 130.213.201.35
X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Dec 22 06:45:47 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows NT; DigExt)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x62.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 130.213.201.35
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDmark_lundquist
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3347
Date: 2000-12-22T06:45:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3A429639.53D3EA9E@acm.org>,
  Marin David Condic <mcondic.nospam@acm.org> wrote:
> Singlespeeder wrote:
>
> >
> > Unfortunately bad coding style is more than mere aesthetics.
> >
>
> Very true.
>

Though it would be better said "...more than mere cosmetics."

Some of us use "aesthetics" and "programming style" interchangeably --
defined as anything that doesn't in and of itself affect the function
of the program.  So I would would object to the phrase "mere
aesthetics" -- there's nothing "mere" about it! :-)

Cheers,
mark

Mark Lundquist
Rational Software


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/