Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #42906

Re: Meta-C question about header order

From Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Meta-C question about header order
Date 2014-04-14 19:31 +0000
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <20140414122000.964@kylheku.com> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <lie4jc$2r1$1@dont-email.me> <bqvl3kFhg97U8@mid.individual.net> <lifi4h$3fe$1@dont-email.me> <20140414090455.107@kylheku.com> <lih9ec$fuo$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 2014-04-14, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 4/14/2014 11:25 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2014-04-14, Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Why in the heads? If you forget one, the compiler tells you
>>>> "foo_t undeclared" and you include the header with typedef foo_t
>>>> above it. Repeat if necessary. This Turing machine can be proven to halt. :-)
>>>
>>> Yes, and the developers need to remember where foo_t is declared.
>>> They'll have to know this even when they don't care about foo_t because
>>> it's only an implementation detail five levels deep on the dependency
>>> graph. By requiring each header to include all the information it needs,
>>> the developer doesn't even have to know foo_t exists, let alone where to
>>> find it. (Or, even worse, which one to use.)
>>
>> The theme we are seeing from the naysayers is developers shouldn't have to know
>> this, or shouldn't care about that, and in general should be able to focus on a
>> small part of the program through a narrow peep-hole in order to make an
>> intended change while learning as little as possible about the program.
>>
>> That may be very well and fine in most of the industry, but in certain programs
>> that are developed to be polished gems of engineerng by people who take pride,
>> this idea of "know as little as possible" is poor ideological fit.
>
> Allowing people to focus their limited resources on the important issues 
> instead of distracting them with irrelevant detail results, in my 
> opinion, in a greater chance of those "polished gems of engineering by 
> people who take pride" being produced.

Which is why I'm not arguing that this is the (or that there is a) One True Way
to structure C sources.

However, I have found this old-school approach to be very nice and workable
on a recent project of mine; none of the FUD against it is proving to be
a generalization. (FWIF, I have much more experience with the "every header
is guarded, and includes what it needs" approach.)

Anyway, in real engineering, there is more global awareness of changes
to a design. Maybe software is the way it is because everyone expects not
to be distracted with irrelevant details such as "how the hell does this
thing actually work as a coherent whole".

In electronics, you would never get away with bullshit like "I'm just going to
throw a little sub-circuit into this schematic and not care about anything
else, since the impedances obviously are such that it has no impact". (Let
someone else worry about board area and layout, noise and crosstalk issues,
emission, added power consumption and heat dissipation, etc).

It's not easy enough for some people that we can just type our product
from a keyboard and have a toolchain convert it into the final running
image. It additionally has to be possible to make changes without knowing
a whole lot of pesky context. Because our time is so expensive, and all.

Maybe this is why companies sometimes spend hundreds of thousands developing
some beautifully functioning working for a device, and then it goes to hell
because the task of making drivers was given to some yahoos as an afterthought,
and the end product is a flop that blue-screens everyone's PC.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-12 19:37 +0000
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-12 13:51 -0700
    Re: Meta-C question about header order glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-13 00:11 +0000
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:40 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 13:10 +0100
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-13 06:29 -0700
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 14:41 +0000
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:36 -0400
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-12 16:58 -0400
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 03:40 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 16:26 +1200
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 05:02 +0000
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 17:21 +1200
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:59 -0400
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 11:02 -0400
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:59 -0400
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 08:26 -0700
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 15:56 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:34 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-13 15:04 -0400
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-04-15 10:52 -0400
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-13 11:09 +1200
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:47 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-14 08:54 +1200
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 21:37 +0000
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-14 09:49 +1200
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-14 19:17 +0000
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-04-15 10:24 +1200
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-16 19:58 +0000
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 21:45 -0400
  Re: Meta-C question about header order luser- -droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2014-04-12 16:48 -0700
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:52 +0000
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 01:04 +0000
  Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 10:15 +0100
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-13 04:06 -0700
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 12:01 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-13 13:46 +0100
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 13:58 +0000
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 11:29 +0000
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-13 08:48 -0500
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-13 14:25 +0000
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-13 15:02 +0000
        Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-13 21:45 -0500
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-14 01:16 -0700
            Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-14 10:16 +0100
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 21:33 -0400
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-14 16:25 +0000
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-14 09:47 -0700
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-14 13:29 -0500
              Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-14 19:31 +0000
                Re: Meta-C question about header order Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-04-14 20:03 -0500
                Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 01:04 +0000
              Re: Meta-C question about header order Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-04-14 15:15 -0700
            Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-14 22:01 -0400
            Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-15 09:51 +0100
              Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 06:01 -0700
                Re: Meta-C question about header order "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-04-15 14:29 +0100
                Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 10:38 -0700
                Re: Meta-C question about header order Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-04-15 18:27 +0000
                Re: Meta-C question about header order Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-04-15 12:45 -0700
                Re: Meta-C question about header order ralph <nt_consulting@yahoo.com> - 2014-04-15 22:02 -0500
          Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-14 17:44 +0000
  Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-04-19 01:25 -0700
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-04-19 10:30 -0400
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-23 19:47 +0000
        Re: Meta-C question about header order James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-04-23 15:53 -0400
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 09:25 -0700
    Re: Meta-C question about header order Jens Schweikhardt <usenet@schweikhardt.net> - 2014-04-23 19:27 +0000
      Re: Meta-C question about header order Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2014-06-10 09:40 -0700

csiph-web