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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #60097 > unrolled thread

Readability part II - comments

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:48 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 10:42 +0200
    Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-16 22:01 +1200
      Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 11:40 +0100
        Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:09 -0400
          Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:18 +0100
            Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 07:36 -0400
              Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 12:43 +0100
                Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 08:00 -0400
                  Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 13:21 +0100
                    Re: Readability part II - comments James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-16 10:54 -0400
                      Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:45 +0100
                  Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:00 +0000
            Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:52 -0700
              Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 16:40 +0100
                Re: Readability part II - comments Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-18 03:33 -0700
              Re: Readability part II - comments Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 21:10 -0500
        Re: Readability part II - comments Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:20 +0100
          Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 17:53 +0100
        Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 17:34 +0000
          Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-16 19:15 +0100
            Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 18:25 +0000
      Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 12:45 +0200
      Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 17:31 +0000
        Re: Readability part II - comments David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 10:48 +0200
          Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 06:35 +0000
            Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-18 19:47 +1200
              Re: Readability part II - comments Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-18 12:54 +0000
                Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 08:43 +1200
                  Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-19 12:36 +1200
                  Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 13:58 +0000
                    Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 21:02 +0000
                      Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-20 23:38 +0000
                        Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 01:12 +0000
                        Re: Readability part II - comments Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-21 16:39 +1200
      Re: Readability part II - comments Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-04-18 14:21 -0400
    Re: Readability part II - comments August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2015-04-16 19:18 +0200
      Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 16:16 +0000
    Re: Readability part II - comments John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 09:19 -0700
      Re: Readability part II - comments asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-20 11:15 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-20 11:37 -0700
      Re: Readability part II - comments Steve Thompson <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 02:02 +0000
        Re: Readability part II - comments David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-22 09:48 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-21 12:40 -0700
      Re: Readability part II - comments Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-21 21:24 +0000
        Re: Readability part II - comments Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-23 21:57 -0700
    Re: Readability part II - comments "Skybuck Flying" <skybuck2000@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 09:14 +0200

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#60097 — Readability part II - comments

What makes code readable?

In a recent thread this term came up, and it got me thinking
about the different sorts of qualities and aspects that are
commonly lumped together under the general term "readability".
Of course I have my own ideas (some more definite than others) on
the subject, but it got me wondering what other folks might have
to say about it.  So I am writing this to invite your responses,
ideas, ramblings, thoughts, orations, monographs and diatribes,
on the general question of what makes code readable, taking
commenting into account.  Three suggested guidelines:

(1) The remarks should apply to programs written in C.  (They may
    also apply to programs written in some other language(s), but
    they should apply to C programs.)

(2) Please let's not degenerate into dogmatic arguments.  If
    someone thinks '/*...*/' comments are "more readable" than
    '//' comments, or vice versa, simply say so and move on
    (explaining why one thinks so is okay, making an argument
    about what someone else should think is .. an argument).
    There is no point in arguing about subjective reactions.

(3) In this thread please limit remarks to matters related to
    commenting, without regard to questions just about code.  The
    related area regarding code sans commenting I will bring up
    in a separate thread.

To start things going, some general questions.  What kinds of
comments are important?  What kinds of comments are better
avoided?  Where should comments go?  How should comments be
written?  How should commenting facilities be used?  In what ways
does commenting interact with readability of the code itself?
And again the topic broadening question - how do matters
regarding commenting relate to other concerns in the development
process (eg, maintenance, testing, documentation, etc)?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#60120

On 15/04/15 20:48, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> What makes code readable?
> 

I can start with a couple of points about what /not/ to say in comments.

Never use a comment for something that can be expressed in code.

Don't write:

extern int cntPpl(void);	// Returns a count of the people

write:

extern int countOfPeople(void);


Don't write:

// This implementation assumes sizeof(int) == 4
void foo(void) { ... }

write:

static_assert(sizeof(int) == 4, "This needs 4-byte ints");
void foo(void) { ... }



Write comments assuming the reader is well versed in common C constructs
appropriate to the type of code, but not necessarily idioms or features
that are common in other C niches.  If you feel it is necessary to
explain what the C expression is doing, it is usually better to re-write
the C code.  So don't write:

x = y >> 3;	// Divide by 8 efficiently

write:

x = y / 8;

and let the optimiser generate good target code.


Assume the reader knows little about the application or implementation
itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60123

Tim Rentsch wrote:
> What makes code readable?
>
<snip>
>
> To start things going, some general questions.

> What kinds of comments are important?

That depends on the context.  Most projects I have worked on prefer 
reasonably verbose, stylised Doxygen comments in headers and a bit of a 
free for all in source files.

In code, comments should state why something is done, what it is doing 
should be clear from the code.  Any bending of the local coding standard 
should always have a comment.

 > What kinds of comments are better avoided?

Those that sate the obvious!  A particular pet hate of mine is comments 
such as

// Includes

// Defines

// Types

// External data

and the like.

> Where should comments go?

For Doxygen comments, before the thing they describe in a header.  For 
code comments, directly before the code they explain.

 > How should comments be written?

In clear, correct <insert project language here> with correct spelling, 
grammar and punctuation.

> How should commenting facilities be used?

?

 > In what ways does commenting interact with readability of the code 
itself?

Too many or too verbose comments distract from the code.  If code needs 
a comment, think very hard about refactoring the code to express the 
solution without a comment.

> And again the topic broadening question - how do matters
> regarding commenting relate to other concerns in the development
> process (eg, maintenance, testing, documentation, etc)?

In my view of the coding world, behavioural comments (such as those in 
Jacob's recent strtol code) belong in the test cases, not the 
implementation code.  I like to be able to read code along with its 
tests.  The tests define what the code is doing in code which 
programmers can follow.

Comments which appear clear and concise the the writer may appear vague 
and ambiguous to a later reader.  Tests never will.

A time pressured maintenance programmer may overlook updating comments 
so they become incorrect.  Tests never will.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60124

On 16/04/15 11:01, Ian Collins wrote:
> Tim Rentsch wrote:

<snip>

>   > How should comments be written?
>
> In clear, correct <insert project language here> with correct spelling,
> grammar and punctuation.

100% performance is an unrealisable goal, but very high conformance 
levels should be part of the contract, and failure to meet those targets 
should be sufficient grounds for termination of that contract. Why 
should we trust people to write statements in a computer language 
correctly if they cannot consistently demonstrate fluent and proper use 
of the human language used by project personnel?

(This policy should also apply to /anyone/ earning an above-average 
wage. If we can sneak this idea into employment legislation...)

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60127

On 04/16/2015 06:40 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
...
> 100% performance is an unrealisable goal, but very high conformance 
> levels should be part of the contract, and failure to meet those targets 
> should be sufficient grounds for termination of that contract. Why 
> should we trust people to write statements in a computer language 
> correctly if they cannot consistently demonstrate fluent and proper use 
> of the human language used by project personnel?

Because I work in the Washington DC area on a civilian science project,
for which neither US citizenship nor a security clearance is required,
we tend to have a disproportionate number of people working here who
could not get security clearances because of their nationality. If we
were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd be in big
trouble. A general ability to be understood is the best we can hope for
(and we do achieve that much, at least).
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60128

On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:

<snip>

> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
 > be in big trouble.

Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
isn't it?

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60130

On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>  > be in big trouble.
> 
> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
> isn't it?

How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
education system - they used their home country's education system,
which we have no power to fix.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60131

On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>  > be in big trouble.
>>
>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>> isn't it?
>
> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
> education system - they used their home country's education system,
> which we have no power to fix.


But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we 
wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local 
economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their") 
were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd 
fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60135

On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>>  > be in big trouble.
>>>
>>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>>> isn't it?
>>
>> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
>> education system - they used their home country's education system,
>> which we have no power to fix.
> 
> 
> But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we 
> wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local
> economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their") 
> were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd 
> fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.

We're importing their programmers because their education system is
producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is
that really evidence that their education system needs fixing? I've seen
other evidence to suggest that, but this isn't part of that evidence. I
think it's their economies which need fixing, to produce sufficient
native demand for programmers that it would be prohibitively expensive
for us to import them.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60137

On 16/04/15 13:00, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>>>  > be in big trouble.
>>>>
>>>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>>>> isn't it?
>>>
>>> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
>>> education system - they used their home country's education system,
>>> which we have no power to fix.
>>
>>
>> But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we
>> wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local
>> economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their")
>> were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd
>> fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.
>
> We're importing their programmers because their education system is
> producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is
> that really evidence that their education system needs fixing?

Your argument appears to be that English fluency should not be a 
requirement for programmers working on English-based projects because 
you can't get enough programmers who are fluent in English. Clearly 
/something/ is broken /somewhere/.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60139

On 04/16/2015 08:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/04/15 13:00, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>>>>  > be in big trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>>>>> isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
>>>> education system - they used their home country's education system,
>>>> which we have no power to fix.
>>>
>>>
>>> But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we
>>> wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local
>>> economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their")
>>> were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd
>>> fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.
>>
>> We're importing their programmers because their education system is
>> producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is
>> that really evidence that their education system needs fixing?
> 
> Your argument appears to be that English fluency should not be a 
> requirement for programmers working on English-based projects because 
> you can't get enough programmers who are fluent in English. Clearly 
> /something/ is broken /somewhere/.

Sorry - I conceded a point, but only informed you of the fact
implicitly, by failing to object, which is a lousy way to communicate.

I thought your original comment about "the" education system was in
reference to teaching English. When I realized you were talking about
the teaching of computer programming, I also realized that you were
right about that. We wouldn't need to import programmers if our
education system were producing enough adequately-trained programmers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60144

On 16/04/15 15:54, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 08:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 13:00, James Kuyper wrote:
>>> On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>>>>>  > be in big trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>>>>>> isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
>>>>> education system - they used their home country's education system,
>>>>> which we have no power to fix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we
>>>> wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local
>>>> economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their")
>>>> were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd
>>>> fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.
>>>
>>> We're importing their programmers because their education system is
>>> producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is
>>> that really evidence that their education system needs fixing?
>>
>> Your argument appears to be that English fluency should not be a
>> requirement for programmers working on English-based projects because
>> you can't get enough programmers who are fluent in English. Clearly
>> /something/ is broken /somewhere/.
>
> Sorry - I conceded a point, but only informed you of the fact
> implicitly, by failing to object, which is a lousy way to communicate.

And you appear to have slightly misunderstood my point, which is 
obviously my fault, so I'll fix that below.

> I thought your original comment about "the" education system was in
> reference to teaching English. When I realized you were talking about
> the teaching of computer programming, I also realized that you were
> right about that. We wouldn't need to import programmers if our
> education system were producing enough adequately-trained programmers.

1) Did I say "the education system"? I did, didn't I? Oops - I 
apologise. Clearly "the" education system means nothing in a global 
context - there are many education systems, all of which have faults;
2) Yes, the teaching of computer programming needs to be improved, but:
3) So does the teaching of English!

To summarise, what we really need is a sufficient supply of computer 
programmers who are capable of:

(a) programming;
(b) communicating effectively in the (human) language used by the 
project team.

This subthread is a witness to the fact that we have yet to solve (b), 
let alone (a)! :-)  But I hope we've managed at last to stumble across 
the line.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60168

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 08:00:13AM -0400, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 07:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 16/04/15 12:36, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> On 04/16/2015 07:18 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
> >>>  > be in big trouble.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
> >>> isn't it?
> >>
> >> How would that help? None of the people I'm referring to used our
> >> education system - they used their home country's education system,
> >> which we have no power to fix.
> > 
> > 
> > But if we fixed /our/ education system (for local values of "our"), we 
> > wouldn't need to import programmers. This would be good for our local
> > economy. And if /their/ education system (for local values of "their") 
> > were to stop them from being able to export programmers, perhaps they'd 
> > fix /their/ education system too, so that they could. I see wins all round.
> 
> We're importing their programmers because their education system is
> producing programmers good enough that we're willing to import them. Is
> that really evidence that their education system needs fixing? I've seen
> other evidence to suggest that, but this isn't part of that evidence. I
> think it's their economies which need fixing, to produce sufficient
> native demand for programmers that it would be prohibitively expensive
> for us to import them.

This discussion is occuring without a metric of language competence.
I propose a scale.  The unit will be the Fred Flinstone.  Thus Pauly
Shore measures about 0.6 Flinstones on the language competence scale.
Margaret Atwood rates about 9.1.   

The question is:  How many Flintstones must I achieve to be considered
literate?

At any rate importing programmers from foreign countries proceeds for
a variety of reasons, some of which are purely monetary.  The concern
is with absolute competence, and me must take into account the
competence of those who are doing the hiring.



Regards,

Steve Thompson

-- 
"If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a
computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to
retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard
hillside garden."  -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60134

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
> 
> > If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>  > be in big trouble.
> 
> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
> isn't it?
> 
It's generally recognised that people with English Literature degrees make good
programmers. Even if I say it myself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60142

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:

> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>> 
>> > If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>  > be in big trouble.
>> 
>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
>> isn't it?
>> 
> It's generally recognised that people with English Literature degrees make good
> programmers. Even if I say it myself.

I think that's a bit of an urban myth.  I've heard it in many variations
-- English lit. students, classicists, musicians and so on, and I think
that all variations are rather over-stated, at least in the narrow way
the issue is often presented.

I taught, for several years, a programming course to a largeish and
diverse class of postgraduates.  The came with a very wide range of
degrees, so I have some useful experience to draw on and I was looking
forward to have this idea confirmed, but I can't say it was.  Whilst
students with such backgrounds did often do well, students with a more
obvious fit in their degree inevitably did well.

I think the myth comes from people being surprised when students with
what might be considered mismatched backgrounds do well (as indeed they
certainly can) or, perhaps, from some other comparison -- maybe with
students with degrees in subject Y (substitute your favourite target of
derision here).

Of course the ease with which someone learns to program on a course is
not the same as making a good programmer, but the myth is often
presented that way in universities: "so and so will do well in your
course, because they have a first in classics" (etc.).

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60299

On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 4:41:03 PM UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> 
> > On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> 
> >> > If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
> >>  > be in big trouble.
> >> 
> >> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought, 
> >> isn't it?
> >> 
> > It's generally recognised that people with English Literature degrees make good
> > programmers. Even if I say it myself.
> 
> I think that's a bit of an urban myth.  I've heard it in many variations
> -- English lit. students, classicists, musicians and so on, and I think
> that all variations are rather over-stated, at least in the narrow way
> the issue is often presented.
> 
> I taught, for several years, a programming course to a largeish and
> diverse class of postgraduates.  The came with a very wide range of
> degrees, so I have some useful experience to draw on and I was looking
> forward to have this idea confirmed, but I can't say it was.  Whilst
> students with such backgrounds did often do well, students with a more
> obvious fit in their degree inevitably did well.
> 
> I think the myth comes from people being surprised when students with
> what might be considered mismatched backgrounds do well (as indeed they
> certainly can) or, perhaps, from some other comparison -- maybe with
> students with degrees in subject Y (substitute your favourite target of
> derision here).
> 
> Of course the ease with which someone learns to program on a course is
> not the same as making a good programmer, but the myth is often
> presented that way in universities: "so and so will do well in your
> course, because they have a first in classics" (etc.).
> 
In a school the overlap between top set English and top set maths
is pretty high, so much so that many schools stream rather than set,
so the top stream are together for all subjects. Ability in one subject
is quite a strong predictor of ability in another.

Then when you filter out the classicists who don't have any interest
in programming, so they don't present themselves for the course,
and those who didn't really understand what was involved, so they
fail at an early stage, you're left with group of people who are
both good classicists, and good enough at programming to pass the
introductory course. You then compare them with another group who
are good enough at programming to pass the introductory course.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60192

Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Thursday, April 16, 2015 at 12:19:06 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 16/04/15 12:09, James Kuyper wrote:
>>
>>> If we were to require English fluency of all programmers, we'd
>>   > be in big trouble.
>>
>> Yes. We'd have to fix the education system. It's a terrible thought,
>> isn't it?
>>
> It's generally recognised that people with English Literature degrees make good
> programmers. Even if I say it myself.
>


Is it? I could see how people with a background in *rhetoric* might
make good programmers, but I can tell when I am talking
to a programmer who squeaked through the calculus series, and English
majors don't have to take that. I'd also say that being
able to construct basic proofs might be quite useful for programmers.

-- 
Les Cargill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60150

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
<snip>
> [...] Why should we trust people to write statements in a computer
> language correctly if they cannot consistently demonstrate fluent and
> proper use of the human language used by project personnel?

You should do so because they are different skills.  You may well desire
both in a colleague, but you should not assume the someone who can't
communicate fluently can't code correctly.  In fact I have a sad example
to hand, someone who recently had a stroke which has robbed them of
their fluency (and correctness) in language, but who can code as well as
ever.

> (This policy should also apply to /anyone/ earning an above-average
> wage. If we can sneak this idea into employment legislation...)

Fortunately his employer is more enlightened than this and he still has,
for the time being, a job.

-- 
Ben.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60152

On 16/04/15 17:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> <snip>
>> [...] Why should we trust people to write statements in a computer
>> language correctly if they cannot consistently demonstrate fluent and
>> proper use of the human language used by project personnel?
>
> You should do so because they are different skills.

The one is very, very dependent on the other.

> You may well desire
> both in a colleague, but you should not assume the someone who can't
> communicate fluently can't code correctly.

In a team environment, communication is an essential skill.

> In fact I have a sad example
> to hand, someone who recently had a stroke which has robbed them of
> their fluency (and correctness) in language, but who can code as well as
> ever.

I'm sorry to hear of his condition, but glad to hear that he can still code.

>> (This policy should also apply to /anyone/ earning an above-average
>> wage. If we can sneak this idea into employment legislation...)
>
> Fortunately his employer is more enlightened than this and he still has,
> for the time being, a job.

Even more fortunately, disability legislation would almost certainly 
apply, and he would be protected by it. In case you're harbouring the 
uncharitable thought that I may not have thought through all the 
implications of my proposal, you're right - I didn't.

Anyone who can't complete the Daily Telegraph crossword in under 20 
minutes should under no circumstances be allowed to become a programmer.

If you don't like /that/ ill-considered proposal, I have plenty more.

-- 
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60160

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:40:11AM +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 16/04/15 11:01, Ian Collins wrote:
> >Tim Rentsch wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >  > How should comments be written?
> >
> >In clear, correct <insert project language here> with correct spelling,
> >grammar and punctuation.
> 
> 100% performance is an unrealisable goal, but very high conformance 
> levels should be part of the contract, and failure to meet those targets 
> should be sufficient grounds for termination of that contract. Why 
> should we trust people to write statements in a computer language 
> correctly if they cannot consistently demonstrate fluent and proper use 
> of the human language used by project personnel?

Because otherwise one might be unable to hire enough staff/consultants
to man one's projects.

You've heard the phrase "can't get good help these days"?  That
sentiment only becomes more true over time as the standard of public
education continues to slide.

This will offend anyone who is deeply religious, but my understanding
of public education policy is that childhood education is deliberately
hobbled precisely for the reason that organized religion requires
masses of poorly educated credulous non-thinkers.  Being a mechanism
of social control, the "priesthood" inform the sheeple how they are
to think and act and they do not want their sheeple to consider too
closely how they are being directed by their leaders or for what
reasons.
 
> (This policy should also apply to /anyone/ earning an above-average 
> wage. If we can sneak this idea into employment legislation...)

Good luck with that.  The guild of lawyers would be the first to
challenge the notion that competence and clarity of language ought to
be a criterion of professional association, and so you would lose
unconditionally.



Regards,

Steve Thompson

-- 
"If I had a nickel for every time some idiot called me about a
computer problem that turned out to be user error, I would be able to
retire and spend the rest of my days cultivating clues in my backyard
hillside garden."  -- MysteryDog in 24hoursupport.helpdesk.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web