My point exactly. I've probably followed behind at least 50 mv programmers with all of my clients. I can detect a style and 'bracket' them into understanding the way they think.
Factor in the time frame of their coding and their limitations come out pretty quickly. As I balance my 15 clients, I am often that programmer following myself, as I cannot remember every routine I've written for someone in the last 30 years. But recognizing easy-to-read code certainly helps get me back to speed. Thanks Mark Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Geoffrey Mitchell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:42 PM Subject: Re: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > Alright, it really gets my goat when people start tossing around "you're > not professional" nonsense. > > Early in my (10 year) programming career, I was fond of "clever" > constructs like "if x else...". As I have matured as a developer, > however, I have realized that the hallmark of good code is > maintainability, and one of the greatest keys to maintainability is > readability. The "if x else..." construct is non-standard, and it just > doesn't flow. Sure, I understand it, but I don't expect it, so it slows > down my thought process. Saying "if not(x) then..." accomplishes the > same thing in a standard, easily readable form. It is much closer to > English language expression, and more in line with most people's thought > processes. As such, it will not slow me down in the least. I will > never have to look at it twice to make sure I'm reading it right. It > will make sense the first time. Therefore, in my opinion, it is far > superior. > > Remember, you're not coding for yourself. You're coding for everyone > who has to read your code after you. > > > Symeon Breen wrote: > > >personaly i find 'if x else' or if y then else just as easy to > >understand. if you stumble over such simple constructs then you are > >not a professional . sorry if that sound harsh, but it is my > >2pennies... > > > >rgds > >Symeon > > > >On 03/08/07, SP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>The code should be easy to understand. Yes. we can figure out a lot of stuff > >>but if making the next guy to stumble over each line having to "figure it > >>out" is not very professional. > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Symeon Breen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> > >>Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 7:44 AM > >>Subject: RE: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Come on guys 'IF X ELSE blah' - is it really that bad/hard - it is logic > >>>and we are computer programmers, we should be able to figure out a lot > >>>tougher stuff than that ;) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Rgds > >>>Symeon. > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MAJ Programming > >>>Sent: 03 August 2007 01:32 > >>>To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>Subject: Re: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > >>> > >>>Then you must have the luzury of programming from scratch. > >>> > >>>I support roughly 15 clients worth of software written in various > >>>platforms > >>>with some source code stretching as far back as 1974. Yes, 33 year old > >>>code. > >>> > >>>I certainly program from scratch as well. But the incredibly large > >>>installed > >>>base uses > >>> > >>>IF X=1 THEN GOSUB 100 > >>> > >>>instead of the ALL_OK=X=1 then IF ALL_OK THEN DO_SOMETHING > >>> > >>>Again, don't read into the literal nature of the example. The deviated > >>>topic > >>>was avoiding the ELSE as the first condition in IF X=100 ELSE GOSUB 100 > >>>which is historically inconsistent. > >>> > >>>My 1 cent > >>>Mark Johnson > >>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Jeff Flynt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>To: <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> > >>>Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 10:14 PM > >>>Subject: RE: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>I typically use the full form of each structured statement and lay it out > >>>> > >>>> > >>>in > >>> > >>> > >>>>the indented format. This is just coding laziness since I hate having to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>go > >>> > >>> > >>>>back and add that missing branch of an if statement when I am 500 lines > >>>>of > >>>>code into it and several indent levels deep. > >>>> > >>>>This includes using the default branch of a case - the "old fashioned" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>CASE > >>> > >>> > >>>>1 clause. How I do it differently is in the wording. I like my code to be > >>>>self documenting and consistent. Using a variable such as X and a label > >>>> > >>>> > >>>such > >>> > >>> > >>>>as 100 is definitely a "little dated." > >>>> > >>>>I used to, in the old days, create an equate for TRUE and set it to 1 = > >>>>1. > >>>>And I would equate OTHERWISE to TRUE. I then have a CASE OTHERWISE, and I > >>>>always have a CASE OTHERWISE on every case statement - even if it had no > >>>>action. These days, I get lazy and just use CASE @TRUE since it would be > >>>> > >>>> > >>>an > >>> > >>> > >>>>arrogant assumption of me to assume that 1 is true. At best it is very > >>>>old > >>>>school and poor form. But having the CASE @TRUE branch there is my > >>>>signature; Coding every structured path is my style. > >>>> > >>>>On the other hand, while I don't do this a lot, I don't have any problem > >>>>with the using the form IF X = 1 ELSE GOSUB 100 type statement. I do > >>>>think > >>>>it is dreadfully cryptic. I seriously hate dealing with this kind of > >>>>code. > >>>>What is X? What is 100? YIKES! And I like to avoid single use > >>>>subroutines/GOSUBs when possible - not because they are inherently bad, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>but > >>> > >>> > >>>>because they are parameterless and if you use it once why complicate the > >>>>issue? I usually just put the code inline, but I occasionally don't if it > >>>>would improve the self documenting nature of the code. > >>>> > >>>>Anyway, if X were a status code say, and we wanted to watch for a status > >>>> > >>>> > >>>of > >>> > >>> > >>>>1 I might do something like this: > >>>> > >>>>ALL_IS_WELL_PROCEED = X = 1 ; * This "X" business is just to match the > >>>>previous example. > >>>>... > >>>>Some code goes here including possibly status code ALL_IS_WELL_PROCEED > >>>>updates > >>>>... > >>>>IF ALL_IS_WELL_PROCEED ELSE GOSUB HANDLE_PROBLEM > >>>> > >>>>To me that reads like instructions to bake a cake, and anybody can "see" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>intension. I do not have to have a degree in cryptography to read this > >>>>regardless of how I set it up. It is 1,000,000 times easier to read then > >>>> > >>>> > >>>the > >>> > >>> > >>>>suggested alternative IF X#1 THEN GOSUB 100 or IF X=1 ELSE GOSUB 100. > >>>>Both > >>>>are equally despicable. Either way the code is so obfuscated it is to be > >>>>avoided at all cost! > >>>> > >>>>So why argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when > >>>>you > >>>>cannot see the mountains in your molehills? It's like, is it better to > >>>> > >>>> > >>>pick > >>> > >>> > >>>>you nose in public with your right hand or your left hand...? > >>>> > >>>>So, while I jest about this, I do have an ounce of seriousness about it. > >>>>Everybody is so "my way is better..." And it just isn't. I include my own > >>>>style in this. My way is only better if you like it better. Flatter > >>>>whomever you like. Copy them! And deal with the god awful code that is > >>>>out > >>>>there... > >>>> > >>>>This thread should be closed. > >>>> > >>>>PS: I wonder if I am the horrible guy who coded the nested OPEN > >>>> > >>>> > >>>statements. > >>> > >>> > >>>>I did do that once upon a time, long ago when I was a MADIC programmer. I > >>>>was really hard core then. I don't do that anymore, but only because I am > >>>>lazy. And I still don't have a problem with it. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MAJ Programming > >>>>Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 9:09 PM > >>>>To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>>Subject: Re: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > >>>> > >>>>I think that CASE 1;Null is an old technique. If the prior conditions > >>>> > >>>> > >>>don't > >>> > >>> > >>>>prevail, then don't bother. Otherwise every IF statement with a THEN > >>>>would > >>>>have ELSE NULL. > >>>> > >>>>BTW, using IF X = 1 ELSE GOSUB 100 is also very hard to read. Sure it > >>>>compiles but source code should be readable for the programmers who have > >>>> > >>>> > >>>to > >>> > >>> > >>>>visually interpet these things. EVERY IF should have an THEN as it's > >>>>predominately a positive test instead of a negative test. Then use IF X # > >>>> > >>>> > >>>1 > >>> > >>> > >>>>THEN GOSUB 100. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>----- Original Message ----- > >>>>From: "Allen Egerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>To: <u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org> > >>>>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 12:48 PM > >>>>Subject: [U2] RE: Cleaner Case Statement > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Bill Brutzman asked: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>How can this structure be cleaned-up? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>><snip> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> begin case > >>>>>> case Ans = 'A' ; gosub Check.A > >>>>>> case Ans = 'B' > >>>>>> case Ans = '2' ; gosub Check.B > >>>>>> end case > >>>>>> > >>>>>>so that the "gosub Check.B" command is not repeated. I have tried a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>few > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>alternatives without a victory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>Dunno if it's cleaner, but this is how I would code it... > >>>>> > >>>>>Begin Case > >>>>> Case Ans eq "A" > >>>>> gosub Check.A: > >>>>> Case ((Ans EQ "B") OR (Ans EQ "2")) > >>>>> gosub Check.B: > >>>>> Case 1 > >>>>> * Do nothing > >>>>>End Case > >>>>> > >>>>>-- > >>>>>Allen Egerton > >>>>>aegerton at pobox dot com > >>>>>------- > >>>>>u2-users mailing list > >>>>>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>>>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>------- > >>>>u2-users mailing list > >>>>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >>>>------- > >>>>u2-users mailing list > >>>>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>------- > >>>u2-users mailing list > >>>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >>>------- > >>>u2-users mailing list > >>>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>------- > >>u2-users mailing list > >>u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >>To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > >> > >> > >------- > >u2-users mailing list > >u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > >To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ > > > > > > > > > > -- > Geoffrey Mitchell > Programmer/Analyst > Home Decorator's Collection > 314-684-1062 > ------- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
