Re: Readability part II - comments

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Readability part II - comments
Date	2015-04-16 19:15 +0100
Organization	go, ion artisan!
Message-ID	<mgou73$900$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<kfnwq1d1b4a.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <cp9fk0Ffnp3U4@mid.individual.net> <mgo3gh$2mp$1@dont-email.me> <0pNZbM.JVQ.Vy1nc@gmail.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 16/04/15 18:34, Steve Thompson wrote:
> 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.

And so we might have to cut back on the projects we undertake, and focus 
on doing a Good Job on those projects. Never mind the width - feel the 
quality.

> 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.

Right.

>
> 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.

That doesn't offend me in the slightest (although I would probably 
qualify as "deeply religious" in most people's eyes), partly because I'm 
not easily offended but also because the above bears not even the 
slightest relation to my own experience of what you would describe as 
organized religion.

>
>> (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.

Ach, you're right again. I'd forgotten about the lawyers.

-- 
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

Thread

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

csiph-web