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: 103376,8811b64ee948c3e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Code Formatters Date: 1996/11/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194389739 references: <552nkb$u1k@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> <327A17CA.6B30@gsfc.nasa.gov> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-11-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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. 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. 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.