code portability

[Frederick Gotham]

Re: code portability

Richard Heathfield posted:

Keith Thompson said:
>

>Frederick Gotham <fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrites:

>>>
>>I like my style though.

>>
>Ok. What about anyone else who reads your code?

>
If you don't like it, don't read it.
>
I don't like it, so I won't read it.
>
But how he writes his code is up to him. If he doesn't need other people
to read it (e.g. to help him out), then as long as he can read it,
that's all that matters.

<OFF-TOPIC>
I started my new style of definitions when I delved deep into template
programming in C++. Some of my definitions were three lines long (when
word-wrapped), and so I separated the lines like as follows:

export template<class NumT, class StrT>
typename Assum<NumT,StrT >::CharT const
*Assum<NumT,Str T>::TextProcess (Letters<NumTco nst &stls)

It's a lot clearer to me like that.

It made sense to overhaul my entire style once I'd seen the light.
</OFF-TOPIC>

--

Frederick Gotham

[Ian Collins]

Re: code portability

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Al Balmer posted:
>
>

>>>Perhaps you'd like to post some of your own code, and I'll point out the
>>>flaws?

>>
>>I wouldn't bother, since you and I obviously have very different ideas
>>as to what constitutes good code.
>>
>>I'll just say that if you presented the examples you've shown in a
>>code review here, you'd be told to fix them.

>
>
>
Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo a
"code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the efficiency
out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.
>

What a load of twaddle.

Are you claiming

static inline int Func(...

is less efficient than

int inline static Func(...

Which was the style issue under discussion.

>
God forbid they might actually adopt my style.
>

+1 to that.

--
Ian Collins.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: code portability

Richard Heathfield <invalid@invali d.invalidwrites :

Keith Thompson said:

>Frederick Gotham <fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrites:

>>I like my style though.

>>
>Ok. What about anyone else who reads your code?

>
If you don't like it, don't read it.
>
I don't like it, so I won't read it.
>
But how he writes his code is up to him. If he doesn't need other people to
read it (e.g. to help him out), then as long as he can read it, that's all
that matters.

Absolutely. But he's shooting himself in the foot, and I have some
vague hope that I might be able to help him realize that.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Flash Gordon]

Re: code portability

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Al Balmer posted:
>

>>Perhaps you'd like to post some of your own code, and I'll point out the
>>flaws?

>I wouldn't bother, since you and I obviously have very different ideas
>as to what constitutes good code.
>>
>I'll just say that if you presented the examples you've shown in a
>code review here, you'd be told to fix them.

>
Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo a
"code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the efficiency
out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.

Of the code I have completely rejected at review:
Some was reused and failed exactly as I said it would. I actually
rejected it before the review, then someone else reviewed it and
let it through.

Some I rewrote and the original author agreed my rewrite was better.

Code reviews do not mean the code has to be dumbed down. They are about
ensuring quality.

>If the second review wasn't drastically improved, there wouldn't be a
>third.

>
If my second try was 40% less efficient the second time around, would it
make the cut?

Where I used to work someone would sit down with you and rewrite it to
be correct, maintainable, conforming to our standard and reasonably
efficient. Of course, we would only expect to do this with someone still
learning to program and it would be quietly suggested to the technical
authority on the project that s/he should spend more time with this
person obviously still in need of lots of training.

>So, do your own thing, but I hope no one else ever has to deal with
>it.

>
God forbid they might actually adopt my style.

Why should they when for so many the more common style reads more easily?
--
Flash Gordon
Still sigless on this computer.

[Frederick Gotham]

Re: code portability

Ian Collins posted:

>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo a
>"code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the
>efficiency out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.
>>

What a load of twaddle.
>
Are you claiming
>
static inline int Func(...
>
is less efficient than
>
int inline static Func(...
>
Which was the style issue under discussion.

No, I was referring to how people who work as programmers tend to suck all
the efficiency out of their code so that it will pass a code review.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Ian Collins]

Re: code portability

Frederick Gotham wrote:

Ian Collins posted:
>
>

>>>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo a
>>>"code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the
>>>efficiency out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.
>>>

>>
>>What a load of twaddle.
>>
>>Are you claiming
>>
> static inline int Func(...
>>
>>is less efficient than
>>
> int inline static Func(...
>>
>>Which was the style issue under discussion.

>
>
>
No, I was referring to how people who work as programmers tend to suck all
the efficiency out of their code so that it will pass a code review.
>

Not in my shop.

--
Ian Collins.

[Ian Collins]

Re: code portability

Ian Collins wrote:

>
Not in my shop.
>

I forgot to say we don't do code reviews.

--
Ian Collins.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Re: code portability

"Frederick Gotham" <fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrote in message
news:4Z6Cg.1241 1$j7.321463@new s.indigo.ie...

Ian Collins posted:

>>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't
>>undergo a "code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and
>>suck the efficiency out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever
>>I
>>work for.

>>
>What a load of twaddle.

....

No, I was referring to how people who work as programmers tend to
suck all the efficiency out of their code so that it will pass a
code
review.

Efficiency only matters after you've established correctness. If I
can't determine if your code is correct, it fails. If it is correct
and the lack of clarity has measurable positive effects on efficiency,
then I'd pass it as long as it was commented well enough that another
coder would be able to maintain it later.

However, most "efficiency " claims I've seen to justify bad code are
not only unjustified (it has no positive effect on performance), but
they often tend to be _wrong_ as well, as the "efficient" coder has
managed to (a) rely on non-portable assumptions that will break when
the code is ported or under various edge cases, or (b) confuse the
compiler enough that the code is actually slower than a clearer
idiomatic implementation.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: code portability

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <invalid@invali d.invalidwrites :

>Keith Thompson said:

>>Frederick Gotham <fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrites:
>>>I like my style though.
>>>
>>Ok. What about anyone else who reads your code?

>>
>If you don't like it, don't read it.
>>
>I don't like it, so I won't read it.
>>
>But how he writes his code is up to him. If he doesn't need other people
>to read it (e.g. to help him out), then as long as he can read it, that's
>all that matters.

>
Absolutely. But he's shooting himself in the foot, and I have some
vague hope that I might be able to help him realize that.

He doesn't strike me as a learner, somehow. Let's hope we're wrong.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999

http://www.cpax.org.uk

email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Al Balmer]

Re: code portability

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:01:52 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrote:

>Ian Collins posted:
>

>>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo a
>>"code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the
>>efficiency out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.

So, you're an amateur, coding strictly for your own ends. OK, that's
fine.

>>>

>What a load of twaddle.
>>
>Are you claiming
>>
> static inline int Func(...
>>
>is less efficient than
>>
> int inline static Func(...
>>
>Which was the style issue under discussion.

>
>
>No, I was referring to how people who work as programmers tend to suck all
>the efficiency out of their code so that it will pass a code review.

Now, just how would you know that, since you have no truck with code
reviews? In any case, it's just one more thing you "know" that isn't
true.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Al Balmer]

Re: code portability

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:27:49 +1200, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.co m>
wrote:

>Ian Collins wrote:

>>
>Not in my shop.
>>

>I forgot to say we don't do code reviews.

Nor do we, on a routine basis. We do code reviews for new hires until
we gain confidence in them. That's partly a job review and partly
training, and very much to insure correctness and maintainability . In
addition, programmers review each other's code on request.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ

[Dik T. Winter]

Re: code portability

In article <HMqdnXjNK5zfOE XZRVnyrg@bt.cominvalid@invalid .invalid writes:

Racaille said:
>

Richard Heathfield wrote:

char 8 bits
short 64 bits
int 64 bits
long 64 bits
>
and at least one implementation does it like that.

which one ?

>
One of the Cray implementations . I forget which one. Nexus rings a bell, but
I wouldn't swear to it.

If I remember correctly, the standard compiler was switchable with
respect to the size of short, either 64 bits or 32 bits.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Frederick Gotham]

Re: code portability

Al Balmer posted:

>>>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo
>>>a "code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the
>>>efficiency out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.

>
So, you're an amateur, coding strictly for your own ends. OK, that's
fine.

This newsgroup is comp.lang.c, not comp.lang.c.bus iness.

I am predominantly a C++ programmer, however I can program in C.

My own code does not suffer from any restrictions which a company may
impose, and so I strive to write quality, fully-portable, Standard-
compliant, efficient code.

I am not the best C++ programmer in the world, nor am I the best C
programmer in the world; however I feel that I am up there with the best.
Perhaps I'm in the top 5% maybe?

I visit newsgroups for hours each day because I want to be a brilliant
programmer. My aspiration has nothing to do with money, nothing to do with
career, and everything to do with passion. Funny as it may sound, (and as
unhealthy as it may sound), computers are a fundamental part of my life.
From childhood, while most kids were playing with batman toys, I was busy
writing batch files. I can remember how great I felt when, at the age of
about 8, I wrote a batch file to allow the user to select their startup; I
gave them a choice of command prompt, or Windows, or Norton Commander. I
spent day after day learning the in's and out's of "config.sys " and
"autoexec.b at". I can recall the joy I had experimenting with "ansi.sys",
making colourful command prompts and so forth...

My interest in computers progressed over the years, and I took up
programming in the form of Visual Basic at the age of about 12. From there,
I moved on to C++. After a few years of programming in C++, I became
complacent with "high level" programming, and wanted to get back to some
*real* programming. That's why I post on comp.lang.c.

Posting here, and over on comp.lang.c++, I am disconcerted by the ever-
frequent mention of business. I would have thought that programmers would
be passionate about what they do, and that they would turn their back on
any prospect of perverting or dumbing down their programming to satisfy the
man in the suit. At the moment, it seems that I'm in the minority here, and
so be it. Thankfully though, twenty years down the road, still shy of
forty, I forsee myself as being a programmer of the highest proficiency. If
there's anything I can learn from these newsgroups, it's that I never want
to program as an occupation.

In the future, I think I would take great satisfaction from teaching
programming, and concurrently working voluntarily on a Standard's
Committee.

--

Frederick Gotham

[Ian Collins]

Re: code portability

Frederick Gotham wrote:

>
I am predominantly a C++ programmer, however I can program in C.
>
My own code does not suffer from any restrictions which a company may
impose, and so I strive to write quality, fully-portable, Standard-
compliant, efficient code.
>

Commendable objectives.

It may not be popular in these parts, but I'd recommend you become
familiar with Test Driven Development as a way of enhancing the quality
of your code, both in design and implementation.

Don't just concentrate on the details of coding, keep an open mind and
investigate alternative ways of producing code.

>
Posting here, and over on comp.lang.c++, I am disconcerted by the ever-
frequent mention of business. I would have thought that programmers would
be passionate about what they do, and that they would turn their back on
any prospect of perverting or dumbing down their programming to satisfy the
man in the suit. At the moment, it seems that I'm in the minority here, and
so be it.

Unfortunately that's the real world we professional programmers inhabit,
although I've never had to, or in recent years required my staff to
"dumb down" programming. I'm not sure from where or on what basis you
make that observation.

Thankfully though, twenty years down the road, still shy of
forty, I forsee myself as being a programmer of the highest proficiency. If
there's anything I can learn from these newsgroups, it's that I never want
to program as an occupation.
>

Then broaden you horizons, learn as many languages and methodologies as
you can, over time you will find the path that works best for you.

--
Ian Collins.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: code portability

Frederick Gotham <fgothamNO@SPAM .comwrites:

Al Balmer posted:

>>>>Who said anything about a code review? My programming doesn't undergo
>>>>a "code review", and so I don't have to dumb it down and suck the
>>>>efficienc y out of it to satisfy the politics of whomever I work for.

>>
>So, you're an amateur, coding strictly for your own ends. OK, that's
>fine.

>
This newsgroup is comp.lang.c, not comp.lang.c.bus iness.

[snip]

I visit newsgroups for hours each day because I want to be a brilliant
programmer.

[snip]

In the future, I think I would take great satisfaction from teaching
programming, and concurrently working voluntarily on a Standard's
Committee.

Ok, you want to be the best C (<OT>and/or C++</OT>) programmer you can
be. That's terrific, and I say that without a trace of sarcasm.

What I don't understand is how this quest leads you to declare things
backwards, using "int unsigned" rather than the far more common
"unsigned int". (Note that even in English grammar, "unsigned int"
makes more sense; "unsigned" is an adjective, and "int" is a noun --
not that that's a decisive argument.)

You've invented a set of rules for how you order keywords, taking
advantage of the fact that the compiler doesn't care. The result is
difficult to read for 99% of C programmers. It's not impossible to
read, just annoyingly difficult, and for no benefit that I can see.

For myself, it makes me less inclined to spend any time reading
articles you post if they use your unconventional ordering. You're
not programming in a vacuum, you're participating in this newsgroup,
and you are, as Henry Spencer wrote, "creating beautiful new
impediments to understanding".

If there were some real benefit, I wouldn't be complaining.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.