On 3 September 2013 12:34, Nick Sabalausky < seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:18:03 +1000 > Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I think I've repeated myself 3 or 4 times here, but one more time for > > good measure... > > > > Requiring IDE assistance to make code _readable_ seems completely > > fail to me. > > 1) You're not always reading code in your IDE, often in commit logs, > > diff windows, emails, chat clients. > > 2) With so much hate for IDE support, it seems like a massive > > contradiction to say that an IDE should be required to make code > > readable. > > > > Reading code is the most fundamental task in programming. Anything > > that gets in the way of code readability is an epic fail. > > > > First of all, not everybody agrees that separating out function > definitions makes code easier to read rather than harder. > > Also, maintainability is just as important as readability, and "poor > maintainability" is a very big and very common objection to C++'s > separation of member function definitions from class definitions. You're > essentially writing and maintaining full documentation completely by > hand and a lot of people feel very bogged down by the extreme > non-DRYness of that very quickly, especially when there are already so > many other ways to get the same information without maintaining > it manually: Automatic Doc generators, high-level IDE class browsing, > and code folding (and code folding is *not* an IDE thing, but an > extremely common code editor thing). > So then don't write your code that way. I didn't tell you how to write your code. I just said I hate inline function definitions, and so do all my colleagues. It demonstrably slowed us down, and it's annoying.