comp.lang.ada
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ohk@edeber.tfdt-o.nta.no (Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen FOU.TD/DELAB)
Subject: Re: Code Formatters
Date: 1996/11/05
Date: 1996-11-05T00:00:00+00:00	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OHK.96Nov5091944@edeber.tfdt-o.nta.no> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 327A17CA.6B30@gsfc.nasa.gov


In article <dewar.847124036@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

   Mike Stark says

   "I completely disagree -- we shouldn't be paying software developers to
   worry about whether the indentation is two or three spaces, or whether
   the "record" keyword should be on the same line or the next line as the
   "type" keyword.  We're paying people to think, not to format."

   This is like saying that we shouldn't be paying novelists to write correct
   grammar or elegant style, they should just be thinking aout plots, and
   copy editors will fix things up.

Yes, I agree, but only to a certain extent. When you write a report,
do you use hours fiddling with fonts, margins, etc. on a wysiwyg
editor, or do you describe the structure of the document and let
something like Tex/Latex take care of the details? Certainly, those
tasks which can be done more efficiently by the computer should be
done that way.

   In fact the only kind of software engineers that I would be willing to pay
   are those who DO worry about the style of their code, and take some pride
   in laying it out and documenting it in an elegant manner.

Your idea of elegant code may not coincide with mine. As a project
leader, I want *standardized* layout. Having a standard layout
which is conformant to the output to some prettyprinter is in my
opinion a good idea, because it means that those who do not want to be
burdened with the detailed layout can avoid it. This does not stop
anyone from documenting the program in an elegant manner, assuming
that you can stop the prettyprinter from mangling your comments. In my
experience, this is not much of a problem, unless you insist on very
arcane commenting styles.

   Thinking that automatic formatting programs can convert junk code to
   elegant code, particularly with respect to laying out comments nicely,
   is like those who in the 60's thought that they could replace docuemtnation
   by automatic flow chart generators.

We are not talking about converting junk code, but about avoiding
unnecessary work which could be done by a program.






  parent reply	other threads:[~1996-11-05  0:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
1996-10-28  0:00 Code Formatters Dave Smith
1996-10-29  0:00 ` Frank C. Post
1996-11-01  0:00 ` Mike Stark
1996-11-04  0:00   ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-05  0:00     ` Philip Brashear
1996-11-05  0:00       ` John English
1996-11-05  0:00   ` Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen FOU.TD/DELAB [this message]
1996-11-05  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-05  0:00       ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-11-05  0:00         ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-06  0:00           ` Dave Smith
1996-11-06  0:00             ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-06  0:00             ` Larry Kilgallen
1996-11-08  0:00               ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-06  0:00   ` Mike Stark
1996-11-07  0:00   ` Axel Boness
1996-11-08  0:00     ` Robert Dewar
1996-11-09  0:00   ` Simon Wright
1996-11-12  0:00   ` Axel Boness
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
1996-11-05  0:00 Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93
1996-11-14  0:00 Simon Johnston
replies disabled

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox