David Megginson writes: > >Curtis L. Olson writes: > > > I know you are making a point by using extereme wording, but if you > > are running through the woods, it doesn't hurt to look up once in a > > while.
> I'm willing to bet that >FlightGear contributors spend more time trying to understand existing >code (including mine) than writing new code. > > > Perhaps you misunderstand my position. It's one thing to delete > > crufty old useless code. However, there may be reasons to keep old > > code #ifdef'd in. > >This is where we disagree -- keeping it in makes the code much harder >for new (and existing) contributors to read and understand, gives >false hits when searching for variables and method calls, etc. etc. >With CVS, IMHO the biggest obstacle to reading and developing FGFS code is the formatting We really need a mechanical formating means that is acceptable to every one as the CVS standard even if it is not perfect or even close to what one would personally use. This way everyone could format the code in a way that helped them understand it and the CVS maintainers could easily compare submissions against existing code FWIW I find a large percentage of the code very difficult to read because of indentation does not match structure and lack of whitespace I know that Curt often has had a difficult time with my submissioons because of massive whitespace change but in all due respect the majority of these changes were necessary inorder fo me to understand the code. I realize that this is a 'religous' issue and a 'tough' problem but IMHO it is a major obstacle to FGFS code evolution regards Norman _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
