Prev: SPARK syntax and “use type” : lack of feature ?
Next: Looking For Simple Routine To Put Integer Into Float
From: Peter C. Chapin on 26 May 2010 17:39
Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

> I recall a study that determined that people found more errors in code when
> examining it on paper than on screen.

I think the difference (one difference) is that you can typically see a lot
more code at once when it's printed out. This may be less true in today's
world of large, high resolution monitors. Still... I can comfortably lay out
four printed pages in front of me on a desk, each with 60+ lines. That's 240
lines of code in one view. I find that helps my comprehension considerably.

Peter

From: Jeffrey R. Carter on 26 May 2010 19:30
Simon Wright wrote:
>
> Lineprinters had 132 columns as I remember.

Yes. 600 LPM on 11x14-inch landscape paper with colored lines across it.
Fast-moving chains or cylinders inside that made it dangerous to wear a tie
(that was my excuse, anyway).

--
Jeff Carter
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!"
Dr. Strangelove
33
From: Simon Wright on 27 May 2010 01:43
"Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not(a)spam.acm.org> writes:

> Simon Wright wrote:
>>
>> Lineprinters had 132 columns as I remember.
>
> Yes. 600 LPM on 11x14-inch landscape paper with colored lines across
> it. Fast-moving chains or cylinders inside that made it dangerous to
> wear a tie (that was my excuse, anyway).

enscript --highlight-bars=1 ! (unfortunately you only get grey).
From: Warren on 27 May 2010 12:55
Stephen Leake expounded in news:82ocg35cst.fsf(a)stephe-leake.org:

> Warren <ve3wwg(a)gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I also have my .emacsrc set to recognize gnat code and
>> to make ^X^Z-G go to the source line in error. Thanks to
>> gnat it even points at the correct statement offset to
>> the very token (or nearly). I'm sure your Gnu-emacs elisp
>> code does the same thing.
>
> Yes.
>
> Even better is gnat-fix-compiler-error; it automatically recognizes
> simple errors, especially style ones like "space required", and fixes
> them for you.

Cool. I'll have to take a look at that when my time
permits.

> I have 'next-error' bound to F6, and 'gnat-fix-compiler-error' bound
> to C-F6. So processing compiler errors is often a simple sequence; F6
> C-F6 F6 C-F6. It's really annoying when I hit one Emacs can't fix :).

;-)

I could probably use a "find next error" binding. That's
something for a rainy weekend.

Warren
From: Warren on 27 May 2010 13:00
Jeffrey R. Carter expounded in news:htjfib$cdd$1(a)tornado.tornevall.net:

> Adam Beneschan wrote:
>>
>> Just kidding. (Insert old joke with punchline "there's whiteout all
>> over your screen" here.) But while I think some people are able to
>> cope without printouts, others sometimes need to have that piece of
>> paper to look at. Don't ask me why.
>
> I recall a study that determined that people found more errors in code
> when examining it on paper than on screen.

I find in my day job, that large (mainframe) COBOL
programs are easier to debug in print form. I know
it is considered "old school" by my co-workers, but
I make a lot of use of those cross-reference listings
in my analysis. With COBOL, it is almost manditory
given that essentially everything is "global" to your
code in paragraphs.

But for more modern languages, where you have proper
scoping rules at work, I wouldn't normally think of
printing out code.

Warren
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: SPARK syntax and “use type” : lack of feature ?
Next: Looking For Simple Routine To Put Integer Into Float