Subj : Re: Is well written code a rare species ?
To   : comp.programming
From : Chris Sonnack
Date : Mon Aug 15 2005 07:03 pm

Joe Butler writes:

>> ....that overly long lines are harder on the eyes than short ones.
>> Newspapers are printed in columns, in part, for that very reason.
> 
> Yes, I agree.  But I'm suggesting that an arbitarily-chosen cut-off is
> counter productive.  I don't think anyone is claiming that the normal
> distribution for readability and other good metrics is centered at 80
> columns - which is why I find it so difficult to accept this rule.

Agreed.  It's a general guideline in my book.

And, FWIW, I find I almost never print source anymore.  It was just a
waste of paper.  I'd usually spot something I wanted to change while
walking the printout back from the printer, so the printout became
obsolete almost the instant it was printed.

>> To make those easier to spot, I often do something like this:
>>
>>     return_type
>>     function_name ( type parameter1
>>                   , type parameter2
>>                   , type parameter3
>>                   , type parameter4
>>                   )
>>     {
>>         blah, blah, blah...
>>     }
>>
>> I've learned over the years that the more *visual* structure I
>> can put in code, the easier it is to work with.
> 
> I'd probably agree with the visual structure comment, but I find commas
> floating out in space like that extremely jarring for some reason.

It's a little odd.  Like many things, that oddness goes away if you
decide to go with it and get used to it.  I've found it useful for
reasons of visual structure.

> The compiler will always catch these errors anyway.

Certainly.

> At the end of the day, the different styles add some variety - I
> wouldn't constrain my programmers to such rigid rules.

AGREED! Rigid rules just about anywhere are a recipe for disaster.


> // compressed (no spaces) yet, inexplicably, the braces
> // are each placed on a line of their own - totally weird to me.
> for(x=0,y=0;x<n;x++,y++)
> {
> 
> }

Given my choice between the above and the below, I'd take the below.
 
> // exploded code
> for ( x = 0 , y = 0 ; x < n ; ++ x , ++ y ) {
> 
> }

Assuming it's not something amUSENET added, I find the assignment
style odd.  Spaces or no spaces, make up your mind!  :-)

> // my own 'style'
> for(x= 0, y= 0; x < n; x++, y++){
> 
> }

I'm also increasing of the opinion that the opening brace should
(in almost all cases) be on the same indent as the closing, but
that's just *my* sense of style.

> // not me cos of the pre-increment
> // I know, it's more efficent (sometimes)
> for (x= 0, y= 0; x < n; ++x, ++y)
> {
> 
> }

Agreed on the pre-incr.  I do use them when the statement is on
its own line (in C-family languages), because I don't like the
trailing semi-colon near the "++".

	ix++ ;  // yuck
	++ix;   // preferred

I'd write your example as:

	for (x=0, y=0; x < n; x++, y++)
	{
	}

-- 
|_ CJSonnack <Chris@Sonnack.com> _____________| How's my programming? |
|_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL  |
|_____________________________________________|_______________________|

.