|
I agree 100% that code should be made as simple as possible, self-documenting, and readable. I actually agree 200%! Even after my 20 or so years of writing code, I STILL examine every routine that I write to see if theres ANY WAY it can be clearer. However. What I most definitely do NOT agree with you about is that "+=" type code makes it difficult to read, or less simple. *NOW* can we leave this up to a vote, and stop beating it to death? On 6 Jan 2001, Frank Kolmann wrote: > Scott Wrote: (I apologise if it was not) > > >If you don't like the += type operators, don't vote for them. If you do, > >vote for them. Let the majority decide. Isn't that what VOTES are FOR? > > > >Don't you feel the slightest bit guilty saying "I dont like the short form > >operators, so people shouldnt be allowed to vote for them!"??? > > Democracy is a wonderful thing but is it the best way to design a > compiler. This is not a question of personal likes and dislikes. > I contend that there are basic rules to programming and > consequently programming languages must conform to > those rules. Guilty, of what should I be guilty. Do I impinge on > your personal freedoms, if so I apologise, it was never my > intent. > > HHL languages developed to make it EASIER for you and > me to write computer code. One should respect others > especially those that will in future pick up your code and > MAINTAIN it. The code should never be an exercise > in how terse and/or obtuse can I make a function. > Code must be self documenting. > It must be readable. > It must be simple. > (Was not a objective of COBOL to be all of the above) > In the final washup a programming language CANNOT > enforce readable, maintainable, simple code. > It is up to the programmers. What is the reason the GOTO > is looked upon with scorn. I have written perfectable readable > code using GOTOs, if one adhears to the KISS principal the > code is by definition simple. I have seen structured IF/ELSE > code 20 levels deep with a few IFNE thrown in that I > could only understand once I rewrote and untangled it. > I suppose all I am saying is that if you introduce a way to > complicate things programmers will do so. I still cringe > when I see some of my early code and I wonder just > who was I trying to impress. I could go on but enuff said. > Frank Kolmann > +--- | This is the RPG/400 Mailing List! | To submit a new message, send your mail to RPG400-L@midrange.com. | To subscribe to this list send email to RPG400-L-SUB@midrange.com. | To unsubscribe from this list send email to RPG400-L-UNSUB@midrange.com. | Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com +---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.