Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed2.utanet.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews-feed.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer From: Andreas Leitgeb Subject: Re: Style Police (a rant) References: <4e6c0fce$0$310$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4e6d1fc5$0$308$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> Reply-To: avl@logic.at User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-111 (Linux) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: 15 Sep 2011 13:46:36 GMT Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at X-Trace: 1316094396 tunews.univie.ac.at 11354 128.130.175.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tuwien.ac.at Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:8054 Arved Sandstrom wrote: > For my part I can live with ugly if it's > comprehensible and correct. You can safely assume, that any definition of "ugly" would boil down to severely impact comprehensibility for anyone but the original author. Had the original author instead had the freedom and decided to use ${someOtherLanguage}, then you likely wouldn't be given the job to maintain/sanitize that code, but maybe instead to rewrite that code from scratch in Java.