C / C++ / MFC

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 3:20

31-May-07 3:20

tom groezer wrote:
Is the below syntax also correct?

Yes, your declarations are equivalent and produces the same operation.
Select one of them for readability reasons, some people go nuts when a line of code exceeds 80 characters. E.g. I really dislike when people are writing function calls like

nResult = GetResult
(
  Param1,
  Param2
);

Coding horror? Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

Rajesh R Subramanian31-May-07 3:23

Rajesh R Subramanian

31-May-07 3:23

Roger Stoltz wrote:
Coding horror?

Truly! Only rogues write code in that style. Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 3:27

31-May-07 3:27

brahmma wrote:
Truly! Only rogues write code in that style

Oh, you have no idea. Some people thinks this is part of the coding guidelines... which of course it's not. Mad | :mad:

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

jhwurmbach31-May-07 4:29

31-May-07 4:29

Roger Stoltz wrote:
Some people thinks this is part of the coding guidelines... which of course it's not.

How could you ever know?
You certainly don't have time to read those fascist pamphlets, do you? Roll eyes | :rolleyes:

Failure is not an option - it's built right in.

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 4:39

31-May-07 4:39

jhwurmbach wrote:
You certainly don't have time to read those fascist pamphlets, do you?

Oh, but I have to, even though I don't have the time.
It's considered a prerequiste for the assignment and quite seriously this is how it should be.
My problem is fellow programmers that create or believe in myths about coding guidelines that aren't true and refuse to re-read the guidelines.

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

jhwurmbach31-May-07 4:45

31-May-07 4:45

Roger Stoltz wrote:
Oh, but I have to, even though I don't have the time.
It's considered a prerequiste for the assignment and quite seriously this is how it should be.

In my eyes, all those typing-regulations are constantly getting in your way of doing your job.
Any reasonably experienced programmer has a coding convention which is at least readable by other programmers.
There is no need to have the business-guys define processes for indenting or
writing a for-loop.

Failure is not an option - it's built right in.

David Crow31-May-07 5:08

David Crow

31-May-07 5:08

In the end, as long as the compiler is happy, that's all that matters. Each person will say that their style is easiest for them to read and understand. Who are we to argue that? How could you argue with a guy that swears up and down that this makes total sense to him:

int main(int,char*){int x;for(x=0;x<10;x++){printf("%d\n",x);int y=x+1;}return 0;}

"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

jhwurmbach31-May-07 5:13

31-May-07 5:13

DavidCrow wrote:
In the end, as long as the compiler is happy, that's all that matters.

If that were all, there would be no need for any coding style.
But there is.

Im am not arguing for no style. I am arguing for a reasonable style-guide. 10 Rules would be enough.
But all coding style documents I know have more than 10 pages!

To me, this looks like idle-looping of management-turned programmers.

Failure is not an option - it's built right in.

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 6:08

31-May-07 6:08

I agree with both you and David.

Yes, there is a need for a coding guideline.
Yes, of course everyone understands code formatted as if they wrote it themselves better.

In my opinion the guideline should help the developer to write more efficient code and less error prone without making it hard for him/her to read his/her own code.

I consider writing good, working, readable and understandable code an art.
A rigorous coding guideline that prohibits me from writing such code becomes an obstacle to me and affects me negatively. E.g the guidelines I must adhere to for the time being is about 210 pages!

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

David Crow31-May-07 6:14

David Crow

31-May-07 6:14

Roger Stoltz wrote:
E.g the guidelines I must adhere to for the time being is about 210 pages!

By chance is your company/department looking to achieve some ISO or SEI compliance?

"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 6:24

31-May-07 6:24

DavidCrow wrote:
By chance is your company/department looking to achieve some ISO or SEI compliance?

I think "they" already got that. Don't know really since I'm here at consultancy basis.

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

jhwurmbach31-May-07 6:17

31-May-07 6:17

Roger Stoltz wrote:
I consider writing good, working, readable and understandable code an art.

I, and most others here will, agree wholeheartedly.
But todays managers try to form programming into an industry of putting together standarized pieces.

Roger Stoltz wrote:
E.g the guidelines I must adhere to for the time being is about 210 pages!

Wow! I would need weeksto read me through that much of paper!

Our guidelines here are 43 pages, and most are only suggestions (with the state "PREFFERED"), and mostly repeating basic "good practice" stuff. (Like "Number 41: Catch more derived exeptions first").

Failure is not an option - it's built right in.

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 6:40

31-May-07 6:40

jhwurmbach wrote:
But todays managers try to form programming into an industry of putting together standarized pieces.

Very true.
However, the thought is good from the beginning. But when those pieces don't really fit together or are badly implemented and actually would require a rewrite, nobody wants to hear about it of course.
At that point there's no pride in the work any longer and one has become a code monkey. Sigh | :sigh:

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

Cedric Moonen31-May-07 3:24

Cedric Moonen

31-May-07 3:24

That's because they are paid to the number of lines of code Wink | ;)

Cédric Moonen
Software developer

Charting control [v1.2]

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 3:29

31-May-07 3:29

Cedric Moonen wrote:
That's because they are paid to the number of lines of code

I heard about how authors get paid by the word in US.
But this requires the code to be submitted using GPL (GNU Publish License). Wink | ;)

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

toxcct31-May-07 3:29

toxcct

31-May-07 3:29

hey, sometimes, it's more readable to write so if the function get tons of parameter.
I prefer seeing my parameters on a single screen rather than having to scroll far right...

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

David Crow31-May-07 3:36

David Crow

31-May-07 3:36

toxcct wrote:
sometimes, it's more readable to write so if the function get tons of parameter.

True, but at least do something a little more readable:

nResult = GetResult(Param1,  
                    Param2,
                    Param3,
                    ...);

"A good athlete is the result of a good and worthy opponent." - David Crow

"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne

toxcct31-May-07 3:38

toxcct

31-May-07 3:38

yes, that's exactly how i used to code Smile | :)

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

Roger Stoltz31-May-07 3:40

31-May-07 3:40

toxcct wrote:
I prefer seeing my parameters on a single screen rather than having to scroll far right...

Agreed!
However, the idea that a code line should not exceed 80 chars comes from a time when we had terminals that were 80x72 tokens.
I prioritize the flow of the code; if I understand the flow I know how the function call should be made and if the parameters are correct.
The sample I showed is confusingly similar to common indentation and hence it's a good candidate for giving my brain the hick-ups.
Read this[^] for other candidates of Roger-brain-hick-ups.

"It's supposed to be hard, otherwise anybody could do it!" - selfquote
"High speed never compensates for wrong direction!" - unknown

John R. Shaw31-May-07 9:02

John R. Shaw

31-May-07 9:02

Roger Stoltz wrote:
However, the idea that a code line should not exceed 80 chars comes from a time when we had terminals that were 80x72 tokens.

What terminal used an 80x72 resolution? In DOS it was normally 80x25 unless you switched to a different mode manually (80x72 was not one of them).

The length restriction was more for printing purposes, so lines where not cut off on the right hand side. Some of us also preferred it for terminal viewing, but that was a secondary reason for the restrictions. Now days I rarely print code, but when I do I usually need to reformat it so that it either does not wrap lines or cuts it off, dependent on the software used to print it.

INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra