Idiotic programming style edicts
in [General Programming]
|
From: spinoza1111 on 25 Apr 2010 01:39 On Apr 25, 2:39 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: > On 2010-04-24, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm pretty sure the original code was mine. > > Don't think so -- he jumped on this in pseudo, where it's been there > for months. Bugs and all... > > > It's made up code to > > illustrate that C doesn't have any other way to use the same code to > > process multiple items. Except duplicating the code which I regard as > > an even greater sin. This idiom makes it plain that ACKs and NAKs > > haven't simply been forgotten. > > Exactly. The real key point is that, in his initial "analysis", Nilges > got his explanation of what the code does *completely wrong*. He claimed > that those two cases had no code and didn't do anything, and that this > should have been commented. That's what the code looks to a professional programmer. Sure, I was aware that C has fallthrough: but as an excellent programmer, I never use it. You need to start writing code for professional and excellent programmers. > > You see what happens next; he didn't know about fallthrough in C's switch Actually, I did, but never used it. > statement. That could make him look bad. The only way out is to declare I think you are the one who is concerned with how your look, > that the thing which could make him look bad is so awful that it should > never have been used. > > > hence the comment... Though the idiom is so widespread I don't think > > it's really necessary. > > It's not if we assume a reader who knows C. However, in something I'm > distributing as open source, I prefer not to make assumptions. > > There are limits, though -- I don't mind commenting switches with > "fallthrough" because occasionally people just plain forget that, or > get distracted by the layout. In general, though, I am gonna write code > that's reasonably clear, and following the advice Nilges gives does not > produce reasonably clear code, as witness the fact that his style leaves > him spending days working on simple problems. No, I just trouble to write good code, on a half hour ferry ride, having a real job as opposed to a corporate programming job which constitutes welfare for fat white males. Let's see, you took two months to produce code with these problems (your bad switch() statements aside): 1. Uninitialized db_header 2. Two calls on either side of an else to the same routine with the parameters out of order Sure, you produced an off by one strlen fast. Wow. > > -s > -- > Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...(a)seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Patrick Scheible on 25 Apr 2010 03:43 spinoza1111 <spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com> writes: > That's what the code looks to a professional programmer. No, that's what the code looks like to a programmer who's a bit green or rusty on C and doesn't pick up on its idioms. "Professional programmer" is a meaningless phrase as there is no professional certification comparable to doctors or lawyers. -- Patrick
From: Seebs on 25 Apr 2010 04:27 On 2010-04-25, Patrick Scheible <kkt(a)zipcon.net> wrote: > spinoza1111 <spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> That's what the code looks to a professional programmer. > No, that's what the code looks like to a programmer who's a bit green > or rusty on C and doesn't pick up on its idioms. Pretty much. > "Professional programmer" is a meaningless phrase as there is no > professional certification comparable to doctors or lawyers. I don't think that's the key distinction. There's no professional certification for many fields, but it is quite possible to distinguish between professionals and amateurs in most. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Jennifer Usher on 25 Apr 2010 21:50 "Patrick Scheible" <kkt(a)zipcon.net> wrote in message news:w9zoch8rn7p.fsf(a)zipcon.net... > "Professional programmer" is a meaningless phrase as there is no > professional certification comparable to doctors or lawyers. This is true. But in many cases, self-taught programmers can run rings around those with degrees, especially those with two year degrees from community colleges. -- Jennifer Usher
From: blmblm on 26 Apr 2010 09:46
In article <09b14a6e-23bb-4fc0-8d66-1e7164746293(a)h16g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, spinoza1111 <spinoza1111(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 24, 8:26 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > > On 24 Apr, 07:39,spinoza1111<spinoza1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 21, 2:17 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: [ snip ] > > > >http://github.com/wrpseudo/pseudo [ snip ] > > > switch (msg->op) { > > > case OP_FCHOWN: /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > case OP_FCHMOD: /* FALLTHROUGH */ > > > case OP_FSTAT: > > > prefer_ino = 1; > > > pseudo_debug(2, "%s %llu [%s]: ", pseudo_op_name(msg->op), > > > (unsigned long long) msg->ino, > > > msg->pathlen ? msg->path : "no path"); > > > break; > > > default: > > > pseudo_debug(2, "%s %s [%llu]: ", pseudo_op_name(msg->op), > > > msg->pathlen ? msg->path : "no path", > > > (unsigned long long) msg->ino); > > > break; > > > } > > > > > Here's the same somewhat cleaned up practice, but here you should have > > > defined the assignment of prefer_ino, the pseudo_debug and the break > > > as a macro. Better yet you should have used an OR statement. > > > > could you illustrate the use of an OR statement with an example? > > Sure: and this rewrite indicates something even probably more horrible > and less professional about this code > > It is that despite the fact that you or Peter claim to want to use > switch with fall thru "to avoid repeated code" (which ignores a basic > form of abstraction), your switch statement has repeated code! > > The two calls to pseudo_debug2 do the same thing, and one of them > appears to get the parameters out of order! After two months work, > this is unacceptable and makes a sick joke out of Peter's libel of > Schildt. > > if (msg->op == OP_FCHOWN || msg_op == OP_FCHMOD || msg_op == FSTAT). > prefer_ino = 1; > pseudo_debug(2, "%s %llu [%s]: ", pseudo_op_name(msg->op), > (unsigned long long) msg->ino, > msg->pathlen ? msg->path : "no path"); // > If this, indeed, is the right order > > Even if it is possible to call pseudo_debug in one case with an > unsigned 64 bit second parameter, and a string in the other, if for > some reason the code in pseudo_debug supports this polymorphism, it is > simply unacceptable. To me it seems likeliest that pseudo_debug is a variadic(?) function, taking arguments similar to those passed to fprintf. That second parameter looks very much like a printf-style format string, and the remaining parameters seem to me to match up fine with its conversion specifiers. -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. |