jam@dcl-cs.UUCP (John A. Mariani) (07/24/85)
In article <95@brl-tgr.ARPA> DHowell.ES@Xerox.ARPA writes: > >Here is my basic opinion: Programs should be as readable as possible so >that people who need to look at the code can understand it easily. If a >program is harder to read, it is harder to understand, and thus harder >to change, debug, update, or whatever. Here follows the usual stuff which we *all* know already re the above stuff .... (which I have mercifully deleted) .. >---Concerning readability--- > >I have stated that i = i + 1 was more readable than i++. The reason is >Just as readable (or even more so) is "increment i", seen in some >languages in some form or another. I've never seen this (thank God!) ... that's not to say I don't believe it, I'm just glad I've never had to use such a language! >The comment > > i++; /* increment i */ > >has been called a non-comment, and it is for C programmers, but if any >non-C programmer needs to look at it (which you say never happens, but >I'm sure it happens more than you think) it is helpful. This is the crux ... when *does* this ever happen! Look, if U've got to read a program written in an unknown language and U come across a *really* common statement, U *go and look it up*!!! If U can't do that, U shouldn't be reading the program in the first place. This statement is *perfectly* readable to anyone who has read any C documentation. This argument is now a DEAD HORSE. We are all *sick* of it. If a language provides a construct *and* it is an efficient one (both in terms of keystrokes and machine code produced) I hope you have enough sense to use it! Let's get back to serious matters.... -- UUCP: ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!jam DARPA: jam%lancs.comp@ucl-cs | Post: University of Lancaster, JANET: jam@uk.ac.lancs.comp | Department of Computing, Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467 | Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.