Style is a subtle thing...
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?They are both crappy code. :|
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?It depends. In this case it's not worth the hassle. Sometimes "beautiful" code is more than just aesthetics, and if it affects maintainability, etc, then I might push back a little. Luckily I don't have to deal with crap like that anymore! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
-
They are both crappy code. :|
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
Absolutely. My first thought would be why on earth do you have something like that in the first place.
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?Style should be standardised across a code base. So, I'd discuss if I did not agree with the style, then stick to whatever was decided.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?
The relationship with my co-workers depends upon their sex, age and willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard. The beauty of any code lies in the eye of the beholder, and code, having all the attibutes of a woman, has needs, wants and a particular inner beauty that is at once obvious and indescribable.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?Bah! The
->operator is merely syntactic sugar; only weak developers use it. -
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?beautiful code.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?Neither they are both train-wreck. Anyway, IMHO the styling should be one thing which should be standardized so that people don't argue on it. There is no right or wrong way so argument is useless. That is why I like StyleCop so much.
-
They are both crappy code. :|
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
Maximilien wrote:
They are both crappy code
Hell, I agree - this is not a point, and the original code probably didn't even look like that. The opinion I am seeking is - would you risk the relationship with your coworkers to enforce the coding style you like?
-
beautiful code.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
beautiful code.
:~ I wouldn't expect such answer from a good manager, to be honest.
-
Neither they are both train-wreck. Anyway, IMHO the styling should be one thing which should be standardized so that people don't argue on it. There is no right or wrong way so argument is useless. That is why I like StyleCop so much.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Neither they are both train-wreck.
Irrelevant for the discussion :) The point is that dev 1 considers sample 1 to be "better" than sample 2, and dev 2 is willing to compromise his work environment to change it to sample 2.
-
Maximilien wrote:
They are both crappy code
Hell, I agree - this is not a point, and the original code probably didn't even look like that. The opinion I am seeking is - would you risk the relationship with your coworkers to enforce the coding style you like?
I ask the person who did the change, just for the sake of curiosity, why the change; maybe there's something in version A that cause some risks vs. version B. If we see together that there is no added risk to the code either by using A or B, then I would just let it go.
This signature was proudly tested on animals.
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?
The relationship with my co-workers depends upon their sex, age and willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard. The beauty of any code lies in the eye of the beholder, and code, having all the attibutes of a woman, has needs, wants and a particular inner beauty that is at once obvious and indescribable.
___________________________________________ .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Maxxx_ wrote:
The relationship with my co-workers depends upon their sex, age and willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard.
That's gotta be the best response ever! Though I'm not sure HR would approve...unless of course HR looks like Salma Hayak, and has a serious sex addiction! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers? -
Maxxx_ wrote:
The relationship with my co-workers depends upon their sex, age and willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard.
That's gotta be the best response ever! Though I'm not sure HR would approve...unless of course HR looks like Salma Hayak, and has a serious sex addiction! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?I definitely avoid this for three reasons: 1. It winds people up, sometimes a lot. 2. You look very stupid when you amend something for style and accidentally introduce a new bug. 3. You introduce changes into the source history in your source code control software that aren't meaningful and actual changes become harder to see. A guy where I work got hold of a copy of resharper and did all of the above in a big way (yep bugs too). I use resharper and it's very good but it's not a good idea to randomly open other people's code with it just to reformat...
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?The following's relationship to your question is somewhat oblique, but nevertheless I think it's germaine. After examining the first module I'd written at what was then my new workplace, the chief code stylist told me, "We do not allow use of computed procedure calls (function pointers) round here". "Why not?" I asked. "Because the compiler has a bug" he replied. "What bug? Show me" I demanded. "This one" he replied, pulling a 15x11 listing from the shelf and referring me to the apparently errant code, which did indeed make use of computed procedure calls. Äfter a few moments of reading I asked "Does it fall over with a bounds error?" "Yes. How did you know that?" he replied with some surprise. "Because there's a GOTO in here that jumps into the middle of a FOR loop" I smugly replied. Needless to say I was able to lift the ban on computed procedure calls, and after that many other constraints on the liberty and freedom of programmers to write the code that they thought best suited the problem. In later years, with some help from the likes Edsger Djikstra and Nicklaus Wirth, I was able to impose an embargo on the use of GOTO, not to be used without prior approval of the then chief code stylist, who was by then -- you can guess who. I had great relationships with my colleagues, especially Deb.... and Elsp... and ...., salad days long gone.
Multi famam, conscientiam pauci verentur.(Pliny)
modified on Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:56 AM
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?code writing is an individual thing. Instead of automatically changing the code or remarking it just talk to the person. Change just for the sake of change is inappropriate. But good communication with your coworkers is the most important issue here. In my case the more experience programmers look at my code and suggest mayber a better looking way but do not hassle me about it. When the end result is the same. Simply talk to each other like adults. ;)
Lonnie R Thomas
-
A recent StackOverflow discussion got me thinking... Apparently somebody did something like:
*(*(*(p_member).p_member).p_member).member
and the other guy said "WTF" and changed it to something like:
p_member->p_member->p_member->member
and offended the guy No. 1 who prefers his own style. Now, I don't want to steal the SO thread and discuss what is better - most if not all of us will agree with the guy 2 that operator
->is the preffered approach here. But would you make a change like this and start a war with someone you work with? I mean, the code is still correct, even if ugly, and the customers will never notice any difference. On the other hand, if you turn the development team into a bunch of people who hate each other, everybody is going to suffer. I guess my question is: would you rather have "beautiful" code or good relationship with your coworkers?Speaking as a person who has to modify (fix) code many years after the writer may have disappeared (grrr!). Readable and understandable code first!!!!!!! The code writer ought to learn its not just writing the code in the first place it has to be maintained, if nothing is said nothing is learned!
-
Maxxx_ wrote:
The relationship with my co-workers depends upon their sex, age and willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard.
That's gotta be the best response ever! Though I'm not sure HR would approve...unless of course HR looks like Salma Hayak, and has a serious sex addiction! :)
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF! Personal 3D projects Just Say No to Web 2 Point Oh
Jim Crafton wrote:
and has a serious sex addiction!
Unless HR is the one with the... how did he put it... Oh yes:
Jim Crafton wrote:
willingness to get drunk at the Xmas party and fool around in the stationery cupboard.