Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87753 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 333 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 12:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-12-08 15:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-08 15:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-08 19:29 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-09 15:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-09 05:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-09 14:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 06:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-08 07:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-09 07:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-09 21:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-09 20:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-10 14:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-10 21:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 00:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Andreas Dehmel <blackhole.8.zarquon42@spamgourmet.com> - 2022-12-11 14:37 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 16:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 08:54 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 16:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 15:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 17:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2022-12-12 22:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-12 22:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:00 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2022-12-13 02:48 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 00:03 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-13 14:39 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:10 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-13 14:59 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:07 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 17:50 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 18:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 10:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 08:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 01:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 13:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-13 09:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 10:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-13 11:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 07:36 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 12:17 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 08:53 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-16 21:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-17 15:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-17 13:32 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 07:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 14:55 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:03 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-19 20:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:54 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tony Oliver <guinness.tony@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 16:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-20 14:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 08:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:52 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 17:56 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ralf Goertz <me@myprovider.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:22 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:37 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 14:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 15:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:33 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 09:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 20:29 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:26 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 11:12 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 16:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-12-21 12:02 -0500
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 17:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-21 10:24 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 10:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-21 11:13 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:19 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 10:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:11 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:05 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-19 16:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-12-19 22:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-20 10:22 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-29 13:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-31 15:00 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-31 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 17:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-31 07:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-12-31 18:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-31 14:46 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 06:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-03 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 10:05 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-03 11:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-03 15:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 07:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 23:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 08:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-04 22:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-05 09:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-05 16:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:02 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-06 14:31 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-05 16:48 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2023-01-06 16:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-09 05:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 00:45 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-09 13:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 05:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-09 22:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-10 11:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2023-01-10 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 16:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-10 07:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 09:11 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-10 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-10 21:38 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-10 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-11 05:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-11 09:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 07:51 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 10:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-13 12:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-01-13 14:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Daniel <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-13 06:18 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-14 07:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-16 11:17 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-24 07:17 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-24 09:35 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2023-01-24 03:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-13 16:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2023-01-11 13:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:23 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-23 23:26 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 09:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 11:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 13:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2023-01-04 15:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 10:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-03 15:57 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:32 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 16:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:12 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:41 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 11:25 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 11:14 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-21 13:42 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-12-21 20:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-21 14:56 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-22 20:43 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-23 10:31 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-23 19:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 19:30 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 12:28 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 16:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-14 16:50 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:01 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 09:40 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:47 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-19 16:52 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 18:08 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 10:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 01:01 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:44 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 10:30 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:21 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:46 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-12-28 13:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 05:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 22:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 10:18 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 10:49 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-20 11:19 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 11:53 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:42 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 13:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-15 07:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:39 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-19 05:27 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 15:55 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 03:28 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 12:09 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-20 14:45 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 20:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:23 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-20 08:58 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 06:30 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 22:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-21 08:24 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:49 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2023-01-04 11:07 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-21 15:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 12:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-22 16:20 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-22 17:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 06:43 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 18:43 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:06 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:14 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-14 22:26 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:26 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-12 09:38 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-12 16:32 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 08:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-13 17:16 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 11:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-12-14 09:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:16 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 08:58 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:20 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 11:54 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 09:40 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-14 22:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-15 10:34 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 13:05 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:04 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-28 12:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-29 20:27 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 15:25 -0600
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-10 16:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-10 15:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 07:10 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-12 09:49 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-12 11:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Udo Steinbach <trashcan@udoline.de> - 2022-12-14 20:03 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 13:46 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 07:10 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-20 18:39 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "daniel...@gmail.com" <danielaparker@gmail.com> - 2022-12-20 11:20 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:03 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-11 14:31 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 16:04 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 00:33 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:13 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 01:47 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 17:48 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:47 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:51 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 19:53 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-12 20:08 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-12-13 11:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-13 13:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-12-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-15 18:29 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-14 08:38 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-14 14:23 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-14 08:36 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 23:25 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-12-17 21:01 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 09:15 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-19 15:48 +0100
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-19 16:06 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 19:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 21:09 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 06:35 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:11 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:12 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-20 07:22 +0000
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 23:39 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 01:59 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:19 -0800
Re: Overuse of 'auto' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 00:22 -0800
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
| From | Muttley@dastardlyhq.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 15:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp1h3n$2gr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88372 |
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:04:34 -0000 (UTC) Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> Your opinion isn't the issue. The problem is you effectively calling anyone >> who disagreed with you an idiot. > >Where did I do that? I'm not trawling back through loads of posts but you know you did. Not directly but phrases like "Why is it so hard for you to understand" etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-04 07:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp39hr$13sd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88374 |
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:04:34 -0000 (UTC) > Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> Your opinion isn't the issue. The problem is you effectively calling anyone >>> who disagreed with you an idiot. >> >>Where did I do that? > > I'm not trawling back through loads of posts but you know you did. Not > directly but phrases like "Why is it so hard for you to understand" etc. In a couple of posts where I have explained in detail what I mean with "it's not about length but about legibility" I asked at the end if the other person understand now what I mean. Is also that an insult?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 23:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tp39sp$2dmo3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88382 |
On 1/3/2023 11:23 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:04:34 -0000 (UTC) >> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> Your opinion isn't the issue. The problem is you effectively calling anyone >>>> who disagreed with you an idiot. >>> >>> Where did I do that? >> >> I'm not trawling back through loads of posts but you know you did. Not >> directly but phrases like "Why is it so hard for you to understand" etc. > > In a couple of posts where I have explained in detail what I mean with > "it's not about length but about legibility" I asked at the end if the > other person understand now what I mean. > > Is also that an insult? Wrt me, well, I can read all of your code verbose or not. We can work together for sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-03 23:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tp39v1$2dmo3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88383 |
On 1/3/2023 11:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 1/3/2023 11:23 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:04:34 -0000 (UTC) >>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>> Your opinion isn't the issue. The problem is you effectively >>>>> calling anyone >>>>> who disagreed with you an idiot. >>>> >>>> Where did I do that? >>> >>> I'm not trawling back through loads of posts but you know you did. Not >>> directly but phrases like "Why is it so hard for you to understand" etc. >> >> In a couple of posts where I have explained in detail what I mean with >> "it's not about length but about legibility" I asked at the end if the >> other person understand now what I mean. >> >> Is also that an insult? > > Wrt me, well, I can read all of your code verbose or not. We can work > together for sure. When is last time you read some code that make you think of the following song about the code itself? https://youtu.be/_jCuroTbqBI ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-04 01:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <tp3hkr$2dmo3$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88384 |
On 1/3/2023 11:30 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 1/3/2023 11:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 1/3/2023 11:23 PM, Juha Nieminen wrote: >>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 11:04:34 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote: >>>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote: >>>>>> Your opinion isn't the issue. The problem is you effectively >>>>>> calling anyone >>>>>> who disagreed with you an idiot. >>>>> >>>>> Where did I do that? >>>> >>>> I'm not trawling back through loads of posts but you know you did. Not >>>> directly but phrases like "Why is it so hard for you to understand" >>>> etc. >>> >>> In a couple of posts where I have explained in detail what I mean with >>> "it's not about length but about legibility" I asked at the end if the >>> other person understand now what I mean. >>> >>> Is also that an insult? >> >> Wrt me, well, I can read all of your code verbose or not. We can work >> together for sure. > > When is last time you read some code that make you think of the > following song about the code itself? > > https://youtu.be/_jCuroTbqBI > > ;^) Actually, there is a funny episode of Silicon Valley on HBO where the main character totally blew it with a very beautiful woman wrt tabs vs spaces! Damn.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-04 08:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp3dpb$n92$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88383 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> In a couple of posts where I have explained in detail what I mean with >> "it's not about length but about legibility" I asked at the end if the >> other person understand now what I mean. >> >> Is also that an insult? > > Wrt me, well, I can read all of your code verbose or not. We can work > together for sure. I wish this topic could be discussed with civility and professionalism, without the hubris. In retrospect when I wrote that "I have been reading code as a full-time job for several years now" (which strongly implies "and thus I know what I'm talking about") might come out as arrogant and self-aggrindizing, but I honestly do not intend it to be. It's simply the rationale, the background, of how I have become convinced of this. *Why* I have become convinced of this. It's not intended as "this is the truth because I know what I'm talking about", but "I think this is a good thing because of what I have seen". But that's indeed so: Having to write unit tests for an existing large codebase really gives you a perspective of what makes code harder or easier to read and understand. That's because having to write unit tests, especially when the goal is 100% code coverage, really requires you to read and fully understand every line of code (oftentimes it's not trivial at all to see how the code execution goes into a particular conditional branch in the code, and it really needs understanding what the code is doing in order to come up with a good clear unit test that goes into that branch.) This goes much deeper than a mere "fix this bug" or "add this feature", or even "find out what this function is doing", as you really need to understand all the code in full. Thus, the importance of the code being easy to understand, and what makes it obfuscated and hard to understand, becomes extraordinarily important. So things like "name loop index variables after the thing they are indexing" are based on those years of experience of having to read and understand code. It's not just some random idea I'm trying to impose, nor is it "I'm right and everybody who disagrees is stupid". It's simply recounting what I have seen and experienced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-04 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871qo9or0w.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #88387 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: > I wish this topic could be discussed with civility and professionalism, > without the hubris. Yes, that would have been nice, but you presented the matter as black and white with no nuance or room for alternative perspectives. That may well be your sincerely held opinion, but then what discussion, beyond nodding agreement, are you wishing for here? When it first appeared that there were sincerely held opinions that differed from yours, you did not show any interest in finding out what there were. In fact, rather than asking for more details, you frequently "poisoned the well" for any further discussion by saying things like "I very much oppose the brevity-over-clarity style of programming" and "Clearer variable names are better. You will have extremely hard time convincing me otherwise." Suggesting that only a defence of brevity at the expense of clarity, or an argument for the superiority of more obscure names will do. Furthermore, you repeatedly presented disagreement as a simple failure to understand "How hard is this to understand, really?" And examples were often batted away, sometimes with extraordinary broad (and unfair) accusations such as "mathematicians are almost proud about the fact that their scribbles are as compressed and cryptic as possible" Civil? Professional? Without hubris? Now some people may have been "arguing in bad faith" (though not, I think, the person that was aimed at) but was everyone? You can't have thought you were engaging only with trolls or you would not have posted this wish for a professional discussion. So when you found yourself writing "so why all this? I honestly cannot understand." I think the onus is on you to try to understand "why all this". Do you think you could accurately summarise what you believe some of the respondents have been saying in way that would allow you to refine your argument to address those points? If you don't think you could, you didn't ask enough questions. Understanding other people's points of view does not mean you agree with them, but it is a first step in having a productive discussion. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-05 09:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp64d9$6v7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88402 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> When it first appeared that there were sincerely held opinions that
> differed from yours, you did not show any interest in finding out what
> there were. In fact, rather than asking for more details, you
> frequently "poisoned the well" for any further discussion by saying
> things like
>
> "I very much oppose the brevity-over-clarity style of programming"
>
> and
>
> "Clearer variable names are better. You will have extremely hard time
> convincing me otherwise."
Take into account what those were responses to. It's not like the
person/people I were responding to discussed the topic in an understanding
and casual manner. The posts were almost antagonistic, some of them even
making direct claims that the exact opposite of what I was saying is
true (ie. that abbreviations and acronyms make the code easier to
understand than what I was suggesting). The tone was, especially from
some people, very much "you are very wrong!" My response was just stating
that there's no way I would believe such a thing, because it goes against
what I see with my own eyes.
> Furthermore, you repeatedly presented disagreement as a simple failure
> to understand
>
> "How hard is this to understand, really?"
My frustration was in response to numerous repeated rather antagonistic
messages making assertions about what I had been saying that I had as
many times said that they aren't true, that it's a misunderstanding.
(More particular, that I was somehow advocating for longer names, that
"longer names are clearer". This was repeated over, and over, and
over, no matter how many times I repeated that it's not what I'm
saying. Is it any wonder that I got frustrated, having to repeat the
same thing again and again, to no avail?)
> And examples were often batted away, sometimes with extraordinary broad
> (and unfair) accusations such as
>
> "mathematicians are almost proud about the fact that their scribbles
> are as compressed and cryptic as possible"
>
> Civil? Professional? Without hubris?
That is my honest impression. While "being proud" might be a bit too
strong of a term, it is the feeling I get sometimes that mathematic
notation is considered some kind of achievement in "expressing as much
as possible with as few symbols as possible". Every time that someone
needs a new symbol to represent something, almost invariably they
will use exactly that: One symbol. They will borrow the symbol from
Greek and sometimes even other scripts, and sometimes even make up
their own unique symbols, no matter how obscure, just to keep it a
single symbol. They seem blind to the fact that when using so many
obscure symbols their mathematical expressions become almost
inscrutable scribbles to the average person. Like they were reading
ancient runes or something. This is not really something to be very
proud of. It almost feels elitistic ("only highly educated in the know
can decipher our obscure script, peasants can't even be expected to
understand what's going on.")
My point is, it's not something to be emulated in programming, if your
intent is to write easily readable and comprehensible code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-05 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tp6qmu$2rq5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88404 |
On 05/01/2023 10:14, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> When it first appeared that there were sincerely held opinions that >> differed from yours, you did not show any interest in finding out what >> there were. In fact, rather than asking for more details, you >> frequently "poisoned the well" for any further discussion by saying >> things like >> >> "I very much oppose the brevity-over-clarity style of programming" >> >> and >> >> "Clearer variable names are better. You will have extremely hard time >> convincing me otherwise." > > Take into account what those were responses to. It's not like the > person/people I were responding to discussed the topic in an understanding > and casual manner. The posts were almost antagonistic, some of them even > making direct claims that the exact opposite of what I was saying is > true (ie. that abbreviations and acronyms make the code easier to > understand than what I was suggesting). The tone was, especially from > some people, very much "you are very wrong!" My response was just stating > that there's no way I would believe such a thing, because it goes against > what I see with my own eyes. > You entered this "discussion" with the attitude that /you/ were absolutely and completely correct in everything you said. Anyone disagreeing with you - even partially - was met with insults, accusations of incompetence, inexperience, or being "part of the problem". You have never at any stage shown that you were interested in reading and understanding counter-arguments, examples or nuances. You have simply assumed that your own position was complete and objective fact, and everyone else is an idiot (even if you tried sometimes to be diplomatic in your wording). Your position has been that there are good programmers who agree with you 100% and who write good programs that always follow your personal choice of rules, and everyone else is a bad programmer who writes bad code. This ridiculous black-or-white vision of yours has blinded you to the fact that everyone in this thread mostly /agrees/ with you about the main points. We just disagree about the absolutism. We know that circumstances vary, that there are invariably exceptions to any rule, and that any choice of guidelines will be inappropriate at times. However, because in your mind (and your mind alone) you see this as a binary issue, you completely misunderstand this disagreement, and think it means other people are promoting cryptic coding. Now, if you want to discuss any of this further, and you want people to take you seriously in this topic, you need to do the following: 1. Understand that you are not the only experienced and intelligent programmer here. If other people disagree with you, and bother to write posts about it, then it is because they too have a point. You might not agree with their points, but you must learn to respect them and try to understand those other views. 2. Understand that very few things in life are pure binary, black-or-white. This is one of them. 3. Understand the /logic/ of what you are saying, the logic of other people, and the logic of agreements and disagreements. This is second-order logic (if you know the mathematical term), not first-order (Boolean logic). The opposite of "A is always true" is "sometimes A is false", not "A is always false". You claimed "A is always true" - people have said you are wrong, because it is /sometimes/ not true, not because it is /always/ not true. 4. Take the time to read other peoples' posts, and try to understand them - don't post knee-jerk rants. If you don't understand what they are saying, or need more clarification, ask. 5. Don't start a "discussion" by claiming you are entirely right and no one will convince you otherwise. 6. Learn when a discussion is over, and leave it alone after that. That's how you can remain respected and friendly in a group like this, rather than burning bridges and getting yourself in killfiles. You are very much a positive force in this group, and it is sad to see you fight with everyone. If you didn't really want a discussion, but merely to rant about some of the bad code you've had to deal with, then consider it "mission accomplished" and leave it. (We all get frustrated sometimes, and a rant to let off steam is absolutely fine as far as I cam concerned.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-06 13:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp965l$edu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88405 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > You entered this "discussion" with the attitude that /you/ were > absolutely and completely correct in everything you said. Anyone > disagreeing with you - even partially - was met with insults, > accusations of incompetence, inexperience, or being "part of the > problem". You must have been reading an imaginary thread because I have said no such thing. Isn't it funny how these bad-faith flamewar arguments always go? "You said this and this, and made this and this insult." "No, I didn't. I didn't mean it like that." "Yes you did! I can't hear you lalalalaaaa!" Why is it that when I say, for example, that I didn't mean some particular expression as an insult, that's not enough? You think I'm lying? Why do you think I'm lying? Why isn't the reasponse "oh, ok, but be aware next time that most people interpret it as offensive", and instead it's "you insulted me! you insulted me! that's an insult! lalalalaaaa can't hear you!!!" > You have never at any stage shown that you were interested in > reading and understanding counter-arguments, examples or nuances. When responses are of the kind "abbreviations and acronyms are more readable than fully spelled-out names" then you are right: I don't understand nor agree with that counter-argument at all. And I have said it in this thread many times. What exactly is there to "understand" in that? > You > have simply assumed that your own position was complete and objective > fact, and everyone else is an idiot (even if you tried sometimes to be > diplomatic in your wording). Yes, just read between the lines things I have never said, accuse me of being an asshole, and never, ever accept my assurance that I did not mean it like that, no matter what I say. Because that's "being interested in reading and understanding counter-arguments". > Your position has been that there are good programmers who agree with > you 100% and who write good programs that always follow your personal > choice of rules, and everyone else is a bad programmer who writes bad code. Just keep reading between the lines things I have never said. And supposedly I am the asshole here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-06 14:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tp97rh$35vpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88412 |
On 06/01/2023 14:02, Juha Nieminen wrote: > And supposedly I am the asshole here. You wanted an explanation of why people have reacted against your posts in this thread. I gave you an explanation. It's up to you to decide what to do with that information. I'd recommend something along the lines of "Oh, I didn't realise that's how I came across - it was not my intention". (Note that the /impression/ you give is more important than the particular words you use.) But it's your call. I'm just trying to find a way to make this now pointless thread stop, preferably without leaving any lasting ill-feelings for any of the participants.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-05 16:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <%bDtL.35076$rKDc.1508@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #88404 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> When it first appeared that there were sincerely held opinions that >> differed from yours, you did not show any interest in finding out what >> there were. In fact, rather than asking for more details, you >> frequently "poisoned the well" for any further discussion by saying >> things like >> >> "I very much oppose the brevity-over-clarity style of programming" >> >> and >> >> "Clearer variable names are better. You will have extremely hard time >> convincing me otherwise." > >Take into account what those were responses to. It's not like the >person/people I were responding to discussed the topic in an understanding >and casual manner. The posts were almost antagonistic, some of them even >making direct claims that the exact opposite of what I was saying is >true (ie. that abbreviations and acronyms make the code easier to >understand than what I was suggesting). The tone was, especially from >some people, very much "you are very wrong!" My response was just stating >that there's no way I would believe such a thing, because it goes against >what I see with my own eyes. I think you are taking it far too personally. The fact is that there is no single correct way to name variables, whether it is RedHatPackageManager or rpm. Personally, I find mixed case horrendous and it slows down my typing rate. I also prefer source code lines to consume less than 81 bytes of horizontal space for readability and portability purposes which generally restricts the length of identifiers to something reasonable. I also believe that in most cases, people subsequently working on my software will be familiar with the problem space, so common abbreviations in that space will be perfectly clear to the reader. These are, of course, personal preferences and beliefs with no suggestion that others need adopt them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-06 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tp973b$q8q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88406 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > Personally, I find mixed case horrendous and it slows down my > typing rate. I also prefer source code lines to consume less > than 81 bytes of horizontal space for readability and portability > purposes which generally restricts the length of identifiers > to something reasonable. I also believe that in most cases, > people subsequently working on my software will be familiar > with the problem space, so common abbreviations in that space will be > perfectly clear to the reader. The goal of well-written code should be that it's as easy to read and understand as possible, even to yourself years down the line. (I think most programmers have experienced the phenomenon where they have to read code that they wrote years ago and have hard time remembering anymore what it's doing, and thus have to re-decipher it.) It is by no means a controversial or niche position that using clear readable variable and function names is one of these ways. You can find plenty of coding style guidelines out there, including those used by big corporations, that instruct this very thing (I gave a couple of examples earlier in this thread). What you will *not* find is any coding style guideline that would state the opposite (ie. that abbreviated names and acronyms are preferred over written-out names). What I have been writing in this thread is that I can confirm with my own personal experience that that wisdom is quite true: When names are written clearly and understandably, to describe what the thing is for, it really does make the code that much easier to understand from the get-go. Conversely, when cryptic abbreviations and acronyms are used, it tends to make the code all that much harder to decipher (especially when it's not clear at all what an abbreviation or acronym is supposed to be for.) This is not about "longer is clearer". The exact same thing would be true if it were extremely common to write 100-character variable and function names, which would make code less readable: In this case the reduced readability comes from the excessive length, and the recommendation would be to express things more succinctly. However, this is in general not a problem that happens in code out there, and thus it doesn't really need to be criticized. The other extreme is the one that's *overwhelmingly* popular, and thus worthy of criticism. The fact that "use full English words" happens to oftentimes produce longer names is not the key point. It's just incidental. It's not the length that makes the names clearer, it's the content: When full words are used, it makes it easier to read. Length has nothing to do with it. (Thus my repeated assertions that "it's not about length, it's about readability.") Also, the 80-character line length limit is completely arbitrary in this day and age. Sure, in the era of 80-character-wide terminals it was relevant, but pretty much nobody uses those anymore, and that number, 80, has become completely arbitrary. There's nothing wrong in lengthening that limit a bit. That being said, if you still find yourself writing lines of code that are excessively long, perhaps that could be an indication that the code could perhaps be written in another better way. Shortening the variable names to make the line shorter is not a solution. It's more like an ugly hack, a workaround (which is often done at the expense of readability). None of these are my original ideas (as I have been accused of claiming). I am merely repeating common wisdom which I have found to be quite accurate. (I don't even understand why I'm being, still, accused of thinking that these are somehow some new novel ideas that I came up with and which I have been trying to shove onto others. None of this is new. You can find coding guidelines that are decades old that state these ideas. These are not my ideas, I'm just repeating them.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-06 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <reYtL.56960$Ldj8.12328@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #88413 |
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes: >Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >> Personally, I find mixed case horrendous and it slows down my >> typing rate. I also prefer source code lines to consume less >> than 81 bytes of horizontal space for readability and portability >> purposes which generally restricts the length of identifiers >> to something reasonable. I also believe that in most cases, >> people subsequently working on my software will be familiar >> with the problem space, so common abbreviations in that space will be >> perfectly clear to the reader. > >The goal of well-written code should be that it's as easy to read and >understand as possible, even to yourself years down the line. (I think >most programmers have experienced the phenomenon where they have to >read code that they wrote years ago and have hard time remembering >anymore what it's doing, and thus have to re-decipher it.) You keep repeating the same assertions over and over. Not everyone agrees with you, leave it at that. I've seen a lot of good code and a lot of bad code in the last forty years; the code structure and organization is _far_ more important that the choice of identifiers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 05:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpg810$b57$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88415 |
Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >>The goal of well-written code should be that it's as easy to read and >>understand as possible, even to yourself years down the line. (I think >>most programmers have experienced the phenomenon where they have to >>read code that they wrote years ago and have hard time remembering >>anymore what it's doing, and thus have to re-decipher it.) > > You keep repeating the same assertions over and over. Not everyone > agrees with you, leave it at that. I've seen a lot of good code > and a lot of bad code in the last forty years; the code structure > and organization is _far_ more important that the choice of identifiers. The thing is that some people here have presented very strong, even outright antagonistic opposition, sometimes even to the point of complete irrationality, for such a non-controversial view that I presented. Also, time and again some people keep saying that I am making a particular claim, no matter how many times I repeat that I am not making that claim. I refute the assertion again and again, in excruciating detail, yet people keep making the assertion over and over. No matter how many times I repeat that the assertion is false, they still keep making it (in particular, about what I have said about the length of identifier names). I think you would understand why I have gotten frustrated. People are free to disagree with what I said, but when they do not present any arguments that I find convincing, shouldn't I likewise be free to disagree with them? Why am I treated like some kind of asshole because I do not agree with their counter-arguments? When I say that I am not convinced, I'm treated like I were somehow arrogant. In other words, everybody else is completely free to disagree with me, and that's not arrogance, but when I disagree with them, I am arrogant. And all this for such a non-controversial statements, which are quite widely agreed upon by a good portion of the programming industry, including big corporations. It just makes no sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 00:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <36500348-0543-47d5-9411-053a83eae265n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88448 |
On Monday, 9 January 2023 at 07:17:39 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Scott Lurndal <sc...@slp53.sl.home> wrote: > >>The goal of well-written code should be that it's as easy to read and > >>understand as possible, even to yourself years down the line. (I think > >>most programmers have experienced the phenomenon where they have to > >>read code that they wrote years ago and have hard time remembering > >>anymore what it's doing, and thus have to re-decipher it.) > > > > You keep repeating the same assertions over and over. Not everyone > > agrees with you, leave it at that. I've seen a lot of good code > > and a lot of bad code in the last forty years; the code structure > > and organization is _far_ more important that the choice of identifiers. > The thing is that some people here have presented very strong, even > outright antagonistic opposition, sometimes even to the point of > complete irrationality, for such a non-controversial view that I > presented. Also, time and again some people keep saying that > I am making a particular claim, no matter how many times I repeat > that I am not making that claim. I refute the assertion again and > again, in excruciating detail, yet people keep making the assertion > over and over. No matter how many times I repeat that the assertion > is false, they still keep making it (in particular, about what I have > said about the length of identifier names). I think you would > understand why I have gotten frustrated. > You say that some people are irrationally and angrily opposing you, but you do not give examples what you mean. Everybody seemed (to me) to agree that brevity can be confusing and ambiguous. The whole point of my few posts was that auto can be unavoidable and verbosity can be also tiring, confusing, stuttering and unhelpful so the alleged dichotomy is simply missing. I don't think I was accusing you of anything, maybe only being overly generic and not giving examples. > > People are free to disagree with what I said, but when they do not > present any arguments that I find convincing, shouldn't I likewise > be free to disagree with them? Why am I treated like some kind of > asshole because I do not agree with their counter-arguments? When > I say that I am not convinced, I'm treated like I were somehow > arrogant. In other words, everybody else is completely free to > disagree with me, and that's not arrogance, but when I disagree > with them, I am arrogant. > You are always free to disagree with me, I do not think that you are asshole or whatever. The topic of naming is difficult, old and controversial so it was bit surprising that you seem to think it being solved, thats all. > > And all this for such a non-controversial statements, which are quite > widely agreed upon by a good portion of the programming industry, > including big corporations. It just makes no sense. > Such shallow rules do not help the big companies to solve the issues. I have read rules of large companies like for example that "getters" should always have "get" prefix and "setters" always have "set" prefix. Dafug? IMHO it implies incorrectly that good interface consists of setters and getters. It was in early of nineties ... when Phil Karlton from Netscape posted that "There are only two hard problems in computer science: cache invalidation and naming things." It did spread. Someone else later added jokingly off-by-one errors but kept the count two. But seriously, naming things is hard, and keeps being hard. If you have belief that it can be solved by simply using full English expressions as names ... then good for you. Just don't be angry that we don't share that belief.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 13:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tph15q$6l1s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #88448 |
On 09/01/2023 06:17, Juha Nieminen wrote: > Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote: >>> The goal of well-written code should be that it's as easy to read and >>> understand as possible, even to yourself years down the line. (I think >>> most programmers have experienced the phenomenon where they have to >>> read code that they wrote years ago and have hard time remembering >>> anymore what it's doing, and thus have to re-decipher it.) >> >> You keep repeating the same assertions over and over. Not everyone >> agrees with you, leave it at that. I've seen a lot of good code >> and a lot of bad code in the last forty years; the code structure >> and organization is _far_ more important that the choice of identifiers. > > The thing is that some people here have presented very strong, even > outright antagonistic opposition, sometimes even to the point of > complete irrationality, for such a non-controversial view that I > presented. Also, time and again some people keep saying that > I am making a particular claim, no matter how many times I repeat > that I am not making that claim. I refute the assertion again and > again, in excruciating detail, yet people keep making the assertion > over and over. No matter how many times I repeat that the assertion > is false, they still keep making it (in particular, about what I have > said about the length of identifier names). I think you would > understand why I have gotten frustrated. > > People are free to disagree with what I said, but when they do not > present any arguments that I find convincing, shouldn't I likewise > be free to disagree with them? Why am I treated like some kind of > asshole because I do not agree with their counter-arguments? When > I say that I am not convinced, I'm treated like I were somehow > arrogant. In other words, everybody else is completely free to > disagree with me, and that's not arrogance, but when I disagree > with them, I am arrogant. > > And all this for such a non-controversial statements, which are quite > widely agreed upon by a good portion of the programming industry, > including big corporations. It just makes no sense. You have not refuted anything, or given any evidence. All you have done is, as you say, repeated your assertions. And we all know that "proof by repeated assertion" is as bad as "proof by appeal to authority" as an argument. /Evidence/ would be pointing to an independent report that showed how error rates and code development costs went down in companies or projects that introduced a "all identifiers must be full English words" policy. You don't have evidence. You have opinions and anecdotes. Now to be clear, again, there is a strong general agreement that unambiguous and descriptive identifiers help make a lot of code easier to understand, and that this is a good thing in many ways. We all want code that is clear and that is easy to read and understand. But there are also plenty of opinions and anecdotes noting that in some situations, shorter names (and yes, I mean shorter) are clearer and easier to read, and thus preferred. Your opinions and anecdotes do not "beat" these ones. When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/ opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely appropriate to say you are being arrogant. /Some/ of your points are uncontroversial - many people have told you that we agree on major points, though you do not seem to understand that. But some of your points are mere opinion and personal experience, and other peoples' opinions and experiences are different. I believe everyone here is happy to accept your personal opinion, based on the personal experience of the job you personally do and the code you personally see. You don't have to justify or "prove" your opinions and preferences - which is a good thing, because good studies of the real benefits of programming styles are thin on the ground. All we ask is respect for /other/ opinions and experiences. When you are able to understand that, and accept that, we can move on - without the arrogance. We could even discuss where we see differences in practice, with examples. But we can't do that when someone insists "I'm right. You know this because I've said it often enough. You are wrong, though I haven't bothered trying to understand what you said." I suggest you start by looking at Google's style guide, since that is one of the authorities you have appealed to as though it were proof of your case. In particular, read : <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#General_Naming_Rules> While I don't want to speak for others, I believe most people in this discussion would broadly agree with Google's suggestions here. You'll find much the same philosophy in the JSF Coding rules (<https://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf>, section 4.91.) You'll find something similar in the "C++ Core Guidelines" - "Make the length of a name roughly proportional to its scope". Pretty much everywhere, guides and programmers, you'll find people recommending that code be written to be clear, easily read and easy to understand. You'll find a recommendation that "long distance" and "large scope" identifiers be descriptive and unique. You'll find that abbreviations should be limited to well-known abbreviations, or at least those used regularly in the context of the particular type of code. These are fairly uncontroversial. But you'll also find recommendations for shorter and easier-to-read identifiers in short scopes, and idiomatic choices. Insisting on full-word identifiers for small scopes is a personal opinion, different from the opinions of many other programmers. It's a valid choice, but you have to accept that it is /not/ universal, nor is it in any objective way shown to be a good choice in general. And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 05:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpiun7$1g54$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88453 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/ > opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely > appropriate to say you are being arrogant. There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words I have never said. > I suggest you start by looking at Google's style guide, since that is > one of the authorities you have appealed to as though it were proof of > your case. In particular, read : > > <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#General_Naming_Rules> The irony. That's exactly one of the things I quoted earlier in this thread that what I am saying is quite widely accepted and used in coding guidelines out there. It's not something I came up with. "Use names that describe the purpose or intent of the object. Do not worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more important to make your code immediately understandable by a new reader. Minimize the use of abbreviations that would likely be unknown to someone outside your project (especially acronyms and initialisms). Do not abbreviate by deleting letters within a word. As a rule of thumb, an abbreviation is probably OK if it's listed in Wikipedia." > And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too > long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. You can go fuck yourself as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-09 22:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <52f8d37a-398a-401a-af5d-aa5dd379979an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #88471 |
On Tuesday, 10 January 2023 at 07:57:14 UTC+2, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> David Brown <david...@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> > When you make unsupported and unjustified claims that all of /your/
> > opinions are somehow "uncontroversial fact", then it is entirely
> > appropriate to say you are being arrogant.
> There we go again reading between the lines and putting in my mouth words
> I have never said.
> > I suggest you start by looking at Google's style guide, since that is
> > one of the authorities you have appealed to as though it were proof of
> > your case. In particular, read :
> >
> > <https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#General_Naming_Rules>
> The irony. That's exactly one of the things I quoted earlier in this
> thread that what I am saying is quite widely accepted and used in
> coding guidelines out there. It's not something I came up with.
>
> "Use names that describe the purpose or intent of the object. Do not
> worry about saving horizontal space as it is far more important to make
> your code immediately understandable by a new reader. Minimize the use
> of abbreviations that would likely be unknown to someone outside your
> project (especially acronyms and initialisms). Do not abbreviate by
> deleting letters within a word. As a rule of thumb, an abbreviation
> is probably OK if it's listed in Wikipedia."
You really stopped reading there? It even brings example similar to what
you argued is good naming. BAD:
for (int foo_index = 0; foo_index < foos.size(); ++foo_index) { // Use idiomatic `i`
> > And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too
> > long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand.
>
> You can go fuck yourself as well.
>
That is what you consider like not arrogant?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-01-10 11:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tpjh02$tqo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #88472 |
Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote: >> > And if this post does not convince you, it is probably because it is too >> > long and too verbose - making it hard to read and understand. >> >> You can go fuck yourself as well. >> > That is what you consider like not arrogant? Responding to mockery with expletives is not arrogance but frustration and anger.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web