Idiotic programming style edicts
in [General Programming]
|
Prev: System Calls
Next: Warning to newbies
From: Ahem A Rivet's Shot on 18 Mar 2010 03:49 On 17 Mar 2010 18:58:00 GMT scott(a)slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Eric Chomko <pne.chomko(a)comcast.net> writes: > >On Mar 17, 9:33=A0am, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...(a)eircom.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:03:43 -0500 > >> > >> jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: > >> > Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: > >> > > Such edicts make one want to write code in the form > >> > >> > > =A0 =A0 x =A0/* The variable x */ > >> > > =A0 =A0 =3D =A0/* is assigned */ > >> > > =A0 =A0 x =A0/* its value * / > >> > > =A0 =A0 + =A0/* plus * / > >> > > =A0 =A0 2 =A0/* one */ > >> > > =A0 =A0 ; =A0 /* . */ > >> > >> > And would make all tapes spill over to two magtapes. > >> > >> > Fortunately, your code would produce many detected errors. > >> > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Nope that's perfectly valid C code - provided that x > >> is d= > >eclared in > >> scope. > >> > > > >Isn't "in scope" redundant here? I mean scope only applies to binding > >time, no? Locals vs. globals vs. non-locals which are not global, > >etc. But I agree the code is fine from the stand point of the > >compiler. > > except for the two occurances of '* /' instead of '*/'. They don't stop it from being fine from the point of view of the compiler - they just add another dimension of the comments being wrong. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Mar 2010 08:27 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: >> >>>> >>>> In our shop, those appeared when we got the idiotic edict that each >>>> line had to have a comment. >>>> >>> Such edicts make one want to write code in the form >>> >>> x /* The variable x */ >>> = /* is assigned */ >>> x /* its value * / >>> + /* plus * / >>> 2 /* one */ >>> ; /* . */ >>> >> And would make all tapes spill over to two magtapes. >> >> Fortunately, your code would produce many detected errors. >> > You might think that, but the reality appears to be that that is untrue. > <grin> My language is MACRO-10. JMF was always tickled whenever he assembled some code because MACRO would report a "successful" assembly with the comment "No errors detected". Think about it. ;-) /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Mar 2010 08:28 Nick Keighley wrote: > On 17 Mar, 12:07, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv(a)aol> wrote: >> Nick Keighley wrote: >>> On 16 Mar, 18:13, gaze...(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: >>>> In article <IU.D20100316.T165150.P1185...(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>, >>>> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgro...(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >>>>>>> If an obscure technique is being employed, then a comment to that >>>>>>> effect is a helpful pointer but I have seen _REALLY USEFUL_ comments >>>>>>> along the following lines ... >>>>>>> x := X + 1 ; increment x >>>> A true CLC pedantic would point out that the above does not increment x >>>> (unless x and X have the same value). >>> it plainly isn't C. Perhaps in whatever-it-is-written-in cares about >>> case. > > doh! > ///doesn't care about case/// > > >>> What *is* it written in? >>>>>>> ... which only serve to increase the noise floor. >>>>>> In our shop, those appeared when we got the idiotic edict that each >>>>>> line had to have a comment. >>>>> Such edicts make one want to write code in the form >>>>> x /* The variable x */ >>>>> = /* is assigned */ >>>>> x /* its value * / >>>>> + /* plus * / >>>>> 2 /* two */ >>>>> ; /* . */ >>>> Correction applied. HTH. >>> #include "crlzyzz.h" /* obvious meaning */ >>> if it's obvious, why did you comment it? >> Now that one may have usefulness :-). If it's not >> obvious to the reader, then a search for the author >> or his/her specs is in order. > > to beat him about the head and shoulders with > > Before you do that, finding out the intent of the code is valuable. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Mar 2010 09:19 spinoza1111 wrote: > On Mar 17, 2:13 am, gaze...(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) > wrote: >> In article <IU.D20100316.T165150.P1185...(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>, >> Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgro...(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: <snip> >>> Such edicts make one want to write code in the form >>> x /* The variable x */ >>> = /* is assigned */ >>> x /* its value * / >>> + /* plus * / >>> 2 /* two */ >>> ; /* . */ > > Nothing wrong with this style of commenting in assembler, at all. And, > this code sample looks like the one byte per instruction language > Mouse. <snip> Are you nuts? /BAH
From: Bradley K. Sherman on 18 Mar 2010 09:17
In article <IU.D20100316.T165150.P1185.Q0(a)J.de.Boyne.Pollard.localhost>, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <J.deBoynePollard-newsgroups(a)NTLWorld.COM> wrote: >> ... >Such edicts make one want to write code in the form > > x /* The variable x */ > = /* is assigned */ > x /* its value * / > + /* plus * / > 2 /* one */ > ; /* . */ > That's great for those new AI compilers that throw away the code and compile the comments. --bks p.s. Yes, stolen from Stan Kelly-Bootle. |