Re: Microsoft style:
"Joseph M. Newcomer" wrote in message
news:am6cp6h7bg4d7gn8rd7id64smq62lbgr5c@4ax.com...
<OT>
...In other countries, the ID number is a mere detail and not
considered either private or proof of actual identify (for example, it is
used to index
the national database and look up details like eye color, hair color,
height, etc., which
are used as part of the identity-determination mechanism, or so I am assured
by some of my
international friends). One country (and I forget which one) keeps
fingerprints on file
for everyone, taken at birth and perhaps later. Mine are on file here in
the US as part
of a security clearance process, but this is actually unusual here; only
criminals,
members of the military, and people who have applied for certain clearances
have their
fingerprints on file with the government.<
It's an effort, but I'll refrain from commenting on what our government has
been doing not only with fingerprint data bases but also with DNA data
bases. It is not a charter for individual rights.
</OT>
****
(Hungarian etc prefixes)
I do not believe that
gratuitous
redundancy adds anything but complexity to simple problems. Compilers will
tell us if we
use the data type incorrectly (that's what compilers are SUPPOSED to do).
Yes, but I like to be able to see things instantly when parsing the code by
eye. I do like the compiler to remind me, and when I *know* I've just set
a short equal to an int, and it is deliberate, I put an explicit cast in to
shut the compiler up. (Which also reminds me when I parse by eye.)
These problems
only existed in K&R C where there was no cross-module type checking.<
Strong typing is indeed a big step forward, but nevertheless my brain is not
so all-encompassing as the compiler and I still like visual hints.
where was std::vector when I needed it in 1995? ARGH! Actually std::map
would have been
a better choice, but doing the equivalent of that would have involved
rewriting probably
80% of the code, and probably squeezed another 5% to 10% off the size.<
std::vector is indeed a wonderful step forward - I use it all over the
place.
One thing which worries me though is all the hassle of exporting classes
containing (or derived from) STL classes from DLLs and all the warnings you
get. I still do it, but I wish Microsoft would get that sorted out.
I used to work in IT, back when I was in college. One thing we learned
was that
everything had to fit on an 80-column card
Usually between columns 7 and 72 in my case :-)
Sounds RESNBL to me :-)
****
Get Real! Oh, never mind, RESNBL *is* REAL (only I-O identiifiers were
integers...) :-))
****
It was I-N as I remember it: O was real.
The number of times I have written
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,O-Z)
I am suddenly unsure of the parentheses, but otherwise it is still engraved
on my heart. Those were the days.
For example, if I need a string, it is always called s. Everywhere. But
it has a scope
of about three lines:
{
CString s;
s.Format(...);
...do something with s
}<
I Use s or S for that, and t or T if I need two with overlapping scope.
Been there, done that with packing. One of the things I did was introduce
the concept of
"coordinate types": there were MIDI coordinates (0..127), staff coordinates
(bottom line
of staff == 0), pitch coordinates (staff coordinates subject to accidental
and key
signature mapping), screen coordinates (on MS-DOS, these were what we would
call "client
coordinates" today) and we had done a lot of really clever things to run in
640K; for
example, that there were limits on how many leger lines you could go above
and below the
staff so we could pack it all into one byte.<
I started my music software on an Atari 520 (using Mark Wiliams C), so
there's a lot of legacy stuff where I have been very parsimonious with
memory (in a way which wouldn't be worth the bother these days).
As I say, this tends to have evolved to follow natural language, where
common words like the verb 'to be' are short and irregular but less used
words like 'existentialism' are longer and advertise their structure with
a
meaningful root (exist) and standard components (like -ent -ial -ism).
The problem with the evolution of "natural language" is that completely
whimsical rules
become rigidly formalized; consider spelling, grammer, etc. as they have
evolved over
centuries in English. Irregular verbs. Why "an historical" unless you are
Cockney ("an
'istorical, mate") <
Because (if you still like it) h-words of more than one syllable with the
stress on one other than the first take 'an'. (French has something
similar with some h-words taking l' and others la/le.)
The insane rules for punctuation and quote marks in the U.S. (they are
different in England, for example)
We have rather few 'rules': often ours are a matter of taste where US
English is prescriptive.
and we won't even talk about the s/z problem (try
teaching a Device Driver course in England, where the most important command
is
!analyze -v<
It's a cross we have to bear. COLORREF etc are also formalised as part of
VC++.
[I was amazed once when I logged onto German friends' AOL dial up
connection. The machine spoke to me. But in German with a German accent!
When computers speak to us it is in American with an American accent. I was
dead jealous!]
and watch the students being outraged at the weird spellings; some get so
angry their
faces change color (or is it colour?)<
Definitely colour. But in *most* cases the difference is because Noah
Webster changed American spellings deliberately. Part of the reason was
commercial: by making US spellings different, it gave a boost to the nascent
US publishing industry and made it less dependent on imports. Fortunately
he died long before he had dun orl the things he wonted to (I kid you not)
and wiser heads prevailed. Some of them (eg 'tyre') are our fault and the
US form is older. When Americans ask me why we don't adopt their spellings
I point out that Webster changed them precisely because it was felt they
should be different, and it would be churlish of us to try and frustrate
that.
But yes it is a problem when US spelling are codified into computer
languages. And 'programme' has already changed to 'program' in UK English
when it means a computer program, but retaining our quirkiness, it's still
'programme' when it refers to anything else :-)
So I watch people try to specify "the one and only correct style", and I'm
amused.
Don't you just love the word 'correct'? :-)
Besides, since my style is the only one and only correct style, why should
other styles
matter?<
Didn't *I* say that?
I needed a curve-fitting program a few years ago, and the only "open
source" algorithm I
could find was in FORTRAN. I had forgotten what a horrible language it is.
I haven't :-)
THe notion that all variables are static, for example.
Yup.
THe last time I hit a COMMON block was about 30 years ago, and the first
thing I did was
split it into several hundred named common blocks, each of which was one
variable in
length!
Yes I have never tolerated unnamed common blocks either - so that is
obviously correct style :-)
The impact of this on maintainability was incredible; no longer did we
have to keep the
COMMON declarations in each of fifty source files in sync!<
All common declarations go in include files! Of course it means that the
variables have the same name in every file, but a common variable with
different names in different files is the real spawn of the devil!
Dave
-- David Webber
Mozart Music Software
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion and support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mozartists/mailinglist.htm