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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 11440e,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid11440e,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-05 14:07:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 16:47:36 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3B0DBD4A.82943473@my-deja.net> <3B0DD011.88FCD00E@acm.org> <83WP6.3874$yc6.728572@news.xtra.co.nz> <3B1411D0.3AAF42E7@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <3B177EF7.2A2470F4@facilnet.es> <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 991774058 11951 136.170.200.133 (5 Jun 2001 20:47:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Jun 2001 20:47:38 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ruby:10405 comp.lang.ada:8196 comp.lang.awk:2792 comp.lang.clarion:21151 comp.lang.java.programmer:73834 comp.lang.pl1:786 comp.lang.vrml:3523 Date: 2001-06-05T20:47:38+00:00 List-Id: My comment is WRT "terse" for the sake of "terse". If the goal is "readability" then it is yet to be demonstrated to my satisfaction that "terse" serves this goal. As has been noted elsewhere, APL and assembly language could both be described as "terse" and neither is typically held up as an example of how to produce "readability". If one would contend that "terse" serves "readability" I would ask to see some kind of study backing up that claim - complete with a definition of what counts as "terse" and what is simply "cryptic". Granted, there are some shorthand notations within any given language that the cognosenti immediately recognize. This might lead them to believe that their shorthand is thus more "readable". What they are really seeing is the fact that it is their familiarity with the idiom that makes it readable - in the same way that a program I spend weeks building & massaging is more "readable" than the one someone just now dumped in my lap. In my estimation, the issue of "readability" is far more important for someone *new* to a project and/or *new* to the language. Can they walk in the door and get up to speed more quickly (thus making more money for the stockholders) if we rely on "terse" languages/notations or will they become productive faster if the language/notations are more verbose, rely less on non-obvious semantics, have better comments, etc.? As for "terse for the sake of being cryptic" - that's obviously A Bad Thing. My contention is that some programmers are terse for the sake of being cryptic without really realizing that this is what they are doing. As cognosenti they derive satisfaction from having what seems cryptic to the outsider seem intuitively obvious to them. They may remark "....Well any *competent* XXX programmer would understand this code at a glance!..." It makes them feel good that they (and the rest of the in-crowd) must be "better" than the unwashed masses. Me? I'd rather write unbelievably uncomplicated, uncryptic, un-terse code (especially when using C) so that when I have someone less experienced, less familiar or less gifted coming on to a project, they can pick it up as absolutely quickly as is possible and have the minimum problems making changes to the code. Why? A) it makes money for the stockholders. B) It keeps them from asking me hundreds of questions and using up my day - thus making more money for the stockholders. C) Its less likely they'll make a mistake that ends up costing the company lots of money - again maximizing shareholder value, D) Did I mention that it makes money for the stockholders? :-) MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Pete Thompson" wrote in message news:rdeqht0fhtvgbpima8jbuolfvrl88n3cc3@4ax.com... > On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:46:36 -0400, "Marin David Condic" > wrote: > > >way around. (And when did "terse" become of value in and of itself, anyway? > >Why should it be a goal to be strived for?) > > > >MDC > > Terse for the sake of readability is good. It gets right to the point. > > Terse for the sake of being cryptic is bad. > >