Re: Coding Standards

["W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM>]

I (Wes) wrote:

>> Now if they are going to
>> change it, yes, I will vigorously defend the current coding standards of
>> the project.

Ken Garlington then asked:

>Do you defent the _current_ coding standards of the project, or the
>standards under which the code was originally written? It seems to me that,
>if you follow Mr. Duff's approach to coding standards, two things happen:

The CURRENT standards.  In maintaining and/or re-using code, I have two
rules:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

2. If it ain't easy to understand, it's broke.

The hard part is defining "easy"  :-)  Most people only want to go by rule #1;
a few of us (myself included) have to be restrained from applying rule # 2 to
90 per cent of existing code!  :-)

>[valid objections skipped]

Those objections are why I agree with you that

>It seems to me that it is not a good idea to have things in coding standards
>that (a) relate to the meaning of the program and (b) are not obvious
>without referring to those standards.

Bob Duff asked why expecting code readers to know the coding standard was
different from expecting them to know the LRM.  To which I (not very clearly)
stated I want READERS to not need ANY outside source--not even the LRM.
But WRITERS had better know the LRM, the local standards, accepted practice,
and much more.

>Here's one common coding standard example which I think violates this rule
(and which I don't like). Many coding standards have a comment in their
prologue that says:

I'll spare you folks my strong opinions on unnecessary duplication.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)                                Office: 219-429-4923
Magnavox - Mail Stop 10-40                               Home: 219-471-7206
Fort Wayne,  IN   46808              elm (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------