Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 318 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-04-16 01:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-05-01 02:07 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:29 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:13 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-02 23:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 20:52 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-09 16:14 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 00:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 05:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 11:01 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-16 13:19 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 09:20 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-17 08:21 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 15:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-17 12:24 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 15:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 13:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-30 13:48 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 16:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 10:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 06:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-02 15:53 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-04 09:41 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 07:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-06 09:34 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 04:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-07 21:49 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 15:27 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 00:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 20:22 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-08 02:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-08 10:53 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-08 09:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-08 11:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:01 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:51 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-06 22:13 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 17:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-08 11:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 10:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 10:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 19:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 04:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 13:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-12 05:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 10:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 05:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 17:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:47 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-12 07:34 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 10:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 23:37 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 00:07 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 01:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 11:00 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 12:33 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 13:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2015-05-14 19:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 20:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-25 02:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 09:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-10 10:20 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 16:30 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-13 20:20 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 02:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:35 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:24 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 08:43 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-21 13:26 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 22:11 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-22 04:03 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:14 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 23:39 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:35 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:36 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 16:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 16:07 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:25 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 12:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:49 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 12:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:29 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 19:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:50 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 11:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 16:16 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 23:04 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-30 15:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-12 17:28 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 22:52 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 12:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Kusalananda <kusalananda@example.com> - 2015-05-24 07:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:15 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 14:09 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 10:37 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 12:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-12 10:20 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 07:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:14 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:38 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:38 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:58 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 13:44 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:32 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 19:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 14:54 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 15:10 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:51 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 17:05 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 18:06 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 14:57 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:06 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 13:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 06:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:36 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 23:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:37 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:03 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 06:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:52 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-10 18:39 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 01:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:50 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 06:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 08:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 07:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 22:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 13:24 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-13 06:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 23:21 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 10:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 16:12 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 18:02 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-12 11:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:13 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:55 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 02:44 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-11 09:25 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 16:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-25 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:17 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 14:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 08:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:18 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-03 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-05-03 19:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 12:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 06:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 09:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 20:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 12:28 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 19:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87wpzypvy3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62503 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 22-May-15 13:51, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> One possible objection I can imagine to K&R sthle is that this:
>>
>> if (condition)
>> statement;
>>
>> (which would be followed by statements *not* controlled by the "if") is
>> difficult to distinguish from this:
>>
>> if (condition) {
>> statement;
>>
>> (which would be followed by statements that *are* controlled by the
>> "if"). Personally I avoid that by never using the first form.
>
> Perhaps you don't consider it sufficient, but the _lack_ of indent on
> the line following "statement;" indicates fairly clearly that it's not
> part of the conditional.
>
> I have no difficulty distinguishing these:
>
> if (condition) {
> foo();
> bar();
> }
>
> vs
>
> if (condition)
> foo();
> bar();
>
> If someone messes up and indents the latter "bar();", well, then you
> have another problem entirely...
Clarity of indentation is not my only reason for always using braces for
conditional and iteration statements. The fact that it simplifies the
problem of seeing program structure is one of several benefits of that
habit.
> Also, I'll admit I've done this a few times to save space:
>
> if (condition)
> foo(),
> bar();
>
> That's definitely not kosher according to most house styles, but it made
> sense at the time and in the specific context.
Ick. It took me a couple of minutes to realize that that's a comma
after foo(). If I saw that without context, I'd assume it was a
mistake, and I'd probably have to ask the author what the intent was.
If I really needed to save space, I *might* consider writing
if (condition) { foo(); bar(); }
I once had to deal with some code that looked like this:
if (condition)
statement1;
statement2;
The context was such that, after a little thought, it was reasonably
obvious that statement2 was meant to be outside the if. On closer
examination, I realized that the author's tab setting were different
from mine (and the code used a mixture of spaces and tabs), so the code
would have looked like:
if (condition1)
statement1;
statement2;
Fortunately, I was able to send it back for a rewrite.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 06:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjrqsa$k31$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62461 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
(snip)
> I'm probably repeating things that have already been said, but ...
> In Allman style:
(snip)
> In K&R style:
> if (condition) {
> statement1;
> statement2;
> statement3;
> statement4;
> }
> the "if" and "}" are vertically aligned, with the 4 statements indented.
> For me, the vertical alignment of the "if" and the "}" is enough to
> make the structure clear at a glance.
By preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style,
except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead
of below. I have been writing my C programs, and some similar
languages that way as long as I remember. I think I like it better,
as to me the closing is part of the block itself. Also, sometimes
that closing } seeme to disappear on the printed page (more than
on the screen) more with K&R style.
> For you, apparently, the alignment of the "if" with the "}" is not
> enough to make the structure clear at a glance. Is that a fair
> statement? If so, can you articulate *why* it's not enough?
> One possible objection I can imagine to K&R sthle is that this:
> if (condition)
> statement;
For sufficiently short statement, I prefer:
if(condition) statement.
I am not sure exactly how short, I just see what it looks like
(usually on the screen) and adjust accordingly. But definitely for:
if(condition) x=0;
or even:
for(i=0; i<10; i++) x[i]=0;
a simple assignment definitely doesn't need three aditional lines.
If a single statement is especially long, or unusually hard to
understand, then I will put it in { and }, in the usual way.
> (which would be followed by statements *not* controlled by the "if") is
> difficult to distinguish from this:
> if (condition) {
> statement;
> (which would be followed by statements that *are* controlled by the
> "if"). Personally I avoid that by never using the first form.
> Allman style does treat "{" and "}" more symmetrically than K&R style
> does. In K&R style, "}" clearly marks the end of a block, while "{" is
> deliberately shoved out of the way. I can see having an aesthetic
> aversion to that (though I don't).
Before C, I used to do some PL/I programming. PL/I uses DO; and END;
for blocks, in the same way C uses { and }. (PL/I also allows for
BEGIN; and END; which does more.) The visual effect of DO; and END;
is a little different.
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87pp5ppymb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62515 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
[...]
> [My] preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style,
> except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead
> of below. I have been writing my C programs, and some similar
> languages that way as long as I remember. I think I like it better,
> as to me the closing is part of the block itself. Also, sometimes
> that closing } seeme to disappear on the printed page (more than
> on the screen) more with K&R style.
[...]
Do you mean like this?
if (condition) {
statement1;
statement2;
statement3;
statement4;
}
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjtkil$q3h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62538 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
(snip)
>> [My] preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style,
>> except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead
>> of below. I have been writing my C programs, and some similar
>> languages that way as long as I remember. I think I like it better,
>> as to me the closing is part of the block itself. Also, sometimes
>> that closing } seeme to disappear on the printed page (more than
>> on the screen) more with K&R style.
> [...]
> Do you mean like this?
> if (condition) {
> statement1;
> statement2;
> statement3;
> statement4;
> }
Yes. It seems to be called Ratliff style.
I am not so sure by now why I got used to this one. I think it was
already in PL/I, where I first learned nest indenting. For my first
years of Fortran programming, I didn't do nest indenting.
It might be that when you scan down the page by eye, the next
statement you see at that level is the next statement executed.
(In the case of a loop, the closing brace is where the loop test
and branch is done.)
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfna8wt7o2h.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62515 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> I'm probably repeating things that have already been said, but ...
>>
>> In Allman style:
>
> (snip)
>
>> In K&R style:
>>
>> if (condition) {
>> statement1;
>> statement2;
>> statement3;
>> statement4;
>> }
>>
>> the "if" and "}" are vertically aligned, with the 4 statements
>> indented.
>>
>> For me, the vertical alignment of the "if" and the "}" is enough
>> to make the structure clear at a glance.
>
> By preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style,
> except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead
> of below.
I think you're describing what is sometimes called Ratliff style
or banner style:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Ratliff_style
Is that right? (Now proceeding on the assumption that it is...)
> I have been writing my C programs, and some similar languages that
> way as long as I remember. I think I like it better, as to me the
> closing is part of the block itself.
I used to do that too, even before learning C (which I did when
K&R came out). But I was convinced to change. Placement of
block closing markers (eg, close brace or END in Algol-like
languages) is one aspect of program style where there is good
objective evidence of what works. Studies testing the effects
of different choices for placement of closing markers found
that putting the close marker directly under (ie, aligned with)
the start of the opening line (eg, either an open brace or IF,
etc) has lower error rates than all the other choices. That
result should settle the matter for any developer worth his/her
salt, no matter what their individual preference might be.
> Also, sometimes that closing } seeme to disappear on the
> printed page (more than on the screen) more with K&R style.
I don't know any way to explain this other than familiarity
bias. If you do some self-study and come up with another
explanation I'd be interested to hear it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-24 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjtkuc$qug$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62539 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: (snip, I wrote) >> By preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style, >> except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead >> of below. > I think you're describing what is sometimes called Ratliff style > or banner style: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Ratliff_style > Is that right? (Now proceeding on the assumption that it is...) >> I have been writing my C programs, and some similar languages that >> way as long as I remember. I think I like it better, as to me the >> closing is part of the block itself. > I used to do that too, even before learning C (which I did when > K&R came out). But I was convinced to change. Placement of > block closing markers (eg, close brace or END in Algol-like > languages) is one aspect of program style where there is good > objective evidence of what works. Studies testing the effects > of different choices for placement of closing markers found > that putting the close marker directly under (ie, aligned with) > the start of the opening line (eg, either an open brace or IF, > etc) has lower error rates than all the other choices. That > result should settle the matter for any developer worth his/her > salt, no matter what their individual preference might be. I suppose so, but as I noted previously, once one is used to one style it is harder to see quickly in another. Usually I can edit programs written by others with a different style, keep the style, and without too much extra work, but it does take a little work to keep doing it. >> Also, sometimes that closing } seeme to disappear on the >> printed page (more than on the screen) more with K&R style. > I don't know any way to explain this other than familiarity > bias. If you do some self-study and come up with another > explanation I'd be interested to hear it. It is related to specific fonts that use thin lines for braces. Some are nice and fat, others aren't. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 09:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn1tgg6loo.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62559 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> By preferred style seems to be rare. It is similar to K&R style, >>> except that I indent the } to match the statement above, instead >>> of below. >> >> I think you're describing what is sometimes called Ratliff style >> or banner style: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Ratliff_style >> >> Is that right? (Now proceeding on the assumption that it is...) >> >>> I have been writing my C programs, and some similar languages that >>> way as long as I remember. I think I like it better, as to me the >>> closing is part of the block itself. >> >> I used to do that too, even before learning C (which I did when >> K&R came out). But I was convinced to change. Placement of >> block closing markers (eg, close brace or END in Algol-like >> languages) is one aspect of program style where there is good >> objective evidence of what works. Studies testing the effects >> of different choices for placement of closing markers found >> that putting the close marker directly under (ie, aligned with) >> the start of the opening line (eg, either an open brace or IF, >> etc) has lower error rates than all the other choices. That >> result should settle the matter for any developer worth his/her >> salt, no matter what their individual preference might be. > > I suppose so, but as I noted previously, once one is used to one > style it is harder to see quickly in another. [snip] That is no excuse for not trying to improve in the face of objective evidence that what one is doing leads to bad results. Suck it up, buttercup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnovd0$8jo$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65128 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: (snip on changing brace style, then I wrote) >> I suppose so, but as I noted previously, once one is used to one >> style it is harder to see quickly in another. [snip] > That is no excuse for not trying to improve in the face of > objective evidence that what one is doing leads to bad > results. Suck it up, buttercup. Are there really good studies, that have enough data to be statistically significant? Double blind so that no preconceived notions enter the results? Seems to me that actual studies are rare, though people making claims about them not so rare. I don't have the reference anymore, but I went to a talk from someone studying more general programming language features, who among others found very few people actually doing such studies, though many reporting results. He did one comparing our favorite programming languages with a similar language that used randomly selected ASCII characters in place of the keywords. The latter scored better! -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 08:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn615qy9mo.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65146 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip on changing brace style, then I wrote) > >>> I suppose so, but as I noted previously, once one is used to one >>> style it is harder to see quickly in another. [snip] >> >> That is no excuse for not trying to improve in the face of >> objective evidence that what one is doing leads to bad >> results. Suck it up, buttercup. > > Are there really good studies, that have enough data > to be statistically significant? Double blind so that no > preconceived notions enter the results? Now you're starting to sound like the tobacco industry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 19:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnrrpn$c75$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65299 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: (snip) >>> That is no excuse for not trying to improve in the face of >>> objective evidence that what one is doing leads to bad >>> results. Suck it up, buttercup. (snip, then I wrote) >> Are there really good studies, that have enough data >> to be statistically significant? Double blind so that no >> preconceived notions enter the results? > Now you're starting to sound like the tobacco industry. I did go to a seminar by someone who actually does such studies, sometime last year. Trying to remember, I think he went to an actual conference on the subject, and found that only one other person had done studies with actual people. Others seems to believe that they know the answer without any testing. Trying to remember even more, and probably paraphrasing, there are people who believe that there is one ideal programming language which we only have approximation for. Others who believe that each person needs their own language that fits their style. Now, I suppose some of the latter is the subject here. Even with a language such as C, one can choose their own style for braces and line breaks. I believe this person did studies on both experienced and new programmers. I will see if I can get a reference. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 04:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn380pu0d5.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65327 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip) >>>> That is no excuse for not trying to improve in the face of >>>> objective evidence that what one is doing leads to bad >>>> results. Suck it up, buttercup. > > (snip, then I wrote) > >>> Are there really good studies, that have enough data >>> to be statistically significant? Double blind so that no >>> preconceived notions enter the results? >> >> Now you're starting to sound like the tobacco industry. > > I did go to a seminar by someone who actually does such studies, > sometime last year. > > Trying to remember, I think he went to an actual conference > on the subject, and found that only one other person had done > studies with actual people. Others seems to believe that they > know the answer without any testing. I don't know anything about what is being done now. Certainly there have been studies with actual test subjects in the past. > Trying to remember even more, and probably paraphrasing, > there are people who believe that there is one ideal programming > language which we only have approximation for. Others who > believe that each person needs their own language that fits > their style. > > Now, I suppose some of the latter is the subject here. Even with > a language such as C, one can choose their own style for braces > and line breaks. Testing defect rates avoids having to answer this question; at some level that is the point using defect rates as a metric. > I believe this person did studies on both experienced and new > programmers. I will see if I can get a reference. I look forward to seeing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-15 17:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mo66ho$40f$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65614 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: (snip, I wrote) >> I did go to a seminar by someone who actually does such studies, >> sometime last year. (snip) > I don't know anything about what is being done now. > Certainly there have been studies with actual test > subjects in the past. (snip) >> I believe this person did studies on both experienced and new >> programmers. I will see if I can get a reference. > I look forward to seeing it. https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 seems to be a link that includes streaming video of the actual talk. Most likely you can also find links on his web page to papers. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-20 08:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr3o2omnt.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65641 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> I did go to a seminar by someone who actually does such studies, >>> sometime last year. > > (snip) > >> I don't know anything about what is being done now. >> Certainly there have been studies with actual test >> subjects in the past. > > (snip) > >>> I believe this person did studies on both experienced and new >>> programmers. I will see if I can get a reference. >> >> I look forward to seeing it. > > https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 > > seems to be a link that includes streaming video of the > actual talk. > > Most likely you can also find links on his web page to papers. I will try to take a look at it soon when I have some time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 03:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnlhe7i388.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65641 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> I did go to a seminar by someone who actually does such studies, >>> sometime last year. > > (snip) > >> I don't know anything about what is being done now. >> Certainly there have been studies with actual test >> subjects in the past. > > (snip) > >>> I believe this person did studies on both experienced and new >>> programmers. I will see if I can get a reference. >> >> I look forward to seeing it. > > https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 > > seems to be a link that includes streaming video of the > actual talk. I had a chance to look at this link. The talk was quite interesting; thank you for the reference. There is a difference between what he is talking about and what I was talking about. What he is talking about is comparing programming languages. What I was talking about is comparing different kinds of usage in a particular language (or sometimes a set of languages). In essence he is concerned with language effectiveness whereas the topics I mentioned are concerned with programmer effectiveness. I find it easy to believe there haven't been many studies done on language effectiveness. But there have been a fair number of studies done on programmer effectiveness.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-23 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <morme2$1ho$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #66242 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: (snip, I wrote) >> https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 >> seems to be a link that includes streaming video of the >> actual talk. > I had a chance to look at this link. The talk was quite > interesting; thank you for the reference. > There is a difference between what he is talking about and what I > was talking about. What he is talking about is comparing > programming languages. What I was talking about is comparing > different kinds of usage in a particular language (or sometimes > a set of languages). Hmmm. I suppose if you choose in advance the language to use, then that is what you would do. But if you found that another language would be much better, would you use it? > In essence he is concerned with language > effectiveness whereas the topics I mentioned are concerned with > programmer effectiveness. I find it easy to believe there > haven't been many studies done on language effectiveness. But > there have been a fair number of studies done on programmer > effectiveness. Programmers are more effective in a more effective language. There is a quote that I don't remember, related to there being one best language for everyone, or there is a different best language for each person. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny4i2eppx.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66267 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) > >>> https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 >>> >>> seems to be a link that includes streaming video of the >>> actual talk. >> >> I had a chance to look at this link. The talk was quite >> interesting; thank you for the reference. >> >> There is a difference between what he is talking about and what I >> was talking about. What he is talking about is comparing >> programming languages. What I was talking about is comparing >> different kinds of usage in a particular language (or sometimes >> a set of languages). > > Hmmm. I suppose if you choose in advance the language to use, > then that is what you would do. But if you found that another > language would be much better, would you use it? Of course that would depend on the circumstances of the situation. In any case though this question is orthogonal to my earlier comment. >> In essence he is concerned with language >> effectiveness whereas the topics I mentioned are concerned with >> programmer effectiveness. I find it easy to believe there >> haven't been many studies done on language effectiveness. But >> there have been a fair number of studies done on programmer >> effectiveness. > > Programmers are more effective in a more effective language. I remember only one result from a cross-language study, which was that assembly always loses (in productivity) to high-level languages, by about a factor of five. IIRC there was very little difference between the various high-level languages, and I couldn't tell you even which ones those were (if indeed I ever knew, which I'm not sure I did). Here again though this is orthogonal to my earlier comment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 16:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eajara97ds3k83fv2tlk92a3su304kec43@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #66413 |
On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:30:34 -0700, Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > >>> In essence he is concerned with language >>> effectiveness whereas the topics I mentioned are concerned with >>> programmer effectiveness. I find it easy to believe there >>> haven't been many studies done on language effectiveness. But >>> there have been a fair number of studies done on programmer >>> effectiveness. >> >> Programmers are more effective in a more effective language. > >I remember only one result from a cross-language study, which was that >assembly always loses (in productivity) to high-level languages, by >about a factor of five. IIRC there was very little difference between >the various high-level languages, and I couldn't tell you even which >ones those were (if indeed I ever knew, which I'm not sure I did). There have been a number of studies, back to the 60s, that have shown that as a first order approximation, individual programmers produce roughly the same number of lines of code in any language per day (assuming, of course, similar experience levels for each language). So roughly the language that requires the fewest LOCs for the task at hand is the most productive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-26 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mp3p17$faf$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #66416 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:30:34 -0700, Tim Rentsch (snip, I wrote) >>> Programmers are more effective in a more effective language. >>I remember only one result from a cross-language study, which was that >>assembly always loses (in productivity) to high-level languages, by >>about a factor of five. IIRC there was very little difference between >>the various high-level languages, and I couldn't tell you even which >>ones those were (if indeed I ever knew, which I'm not sure I did). > There have been a number of studies, back to the 60s, that have shown > that as a first order approximation, individual programmers produce > roughly the same number of lines of code in any language per day > (assuming, of course, similar experience levels for each language). So > roughly the language that requires the fewest LOCs for the task at > hand is the most productive. I might have said 0th order approximation, but yes, in comparing assembly to some HLL, it is approximately equal in LOC/day. But I think we now need a higher order approximation. For one, I believe that structured programming, even if you count lines the way many here do, is more productive. (In the 60's, it might have been Fortran 66 vs. assembly.) -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-30 15:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn6151cmx2.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66416 |
Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 11:30:34 -0700, Tim Rentsch > <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> >>>> In essence he is concerned with language >>>> effectiveness whereas the topics I mentioned are concerned with >>>> programmer effectiveness. I find it easy to believe there >>>> haven't been many studies done on language effectiveness. But >>>> there have been a fair number of studies done on programmer >>>> effectiveness. >>> >>> Programmers are more effective in a more effective language. >> >> I remember only one result from a cross-language study, which was that >> assembly always loses (in productivity) to high-level languages, by >> about a factor of five. IIRC there was very little difference between >> the various high-level languages, and I couldn't tell you even which >> ones those were (if indeed I ever knew, which I'm not sure I did). > > There have been a number of studies, back to the 60s, that have > shown that as a first order approximation, individual programmers > produce roughly the same number of lines of code in any language > per day (assuming, of course, similar experience levels for each > language). Now that you mention it, this rings a bell. And it explains why assembly is the worst, because high-level languages typically produce multiple assembly instructions for each line of HLL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-10 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnwpy856w5.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62436 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 21/05/15 15:25, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >>> On 11/05/15 21:00, Bartc wrote: >>> >>>> With your preferred [Allman] brace style, there will be lots of >>>> extraneous vertical space introduced, depending on whether your >>>> 'else's follow on on the same line as the "}". >>> >>> Clearly you see the "extraneous" vertical space as a disadvantage. >>> I see it as an advantage. >> >> How is taking more vertical space an advantage? > > Do you see how you left a blank line between my paragraph and your > reply to it? Ask yourself why. This answer doesn't say anything useful. Obviously how we think of the two situations are different. I know what I think; what I'm trying to find out is what you think. >>> It has the same visual benefit as an >>> empty line (and that visual benefit is very real, which is why >>> Usenauts put a blank line between paragraphs), but with the added >>> benefit that it's not empty. :-) >> >> To me, putting a on a character like open brace on a line >> intended as a spacing line adds distracting visual clutter; all >> cost, no benefit. Apparently your reaction is just the opposite. > > Indeed. > >> What about it is a benefit? Or what benefit would you say it >> provides? > > For you, the brace is distracting visual clutter. For me, it's a > visual aid. I've already explained this a couple of times, I > think. The Allman style gives a very strong emphasis to the structure > of a block. I find that emphasis helpful. I hear that you find it helpful. What I'm trying to find out is how, what and why does it help.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web