Bill,
Your use of the pejorative "devolve" does not appeal to me.
For me (and Byron apparently), it's not at all about "likes" or
"dislikes". Would that it were so! Then it would clearly be non-
productive. But I completely disagree that it's likes or dislikes at
issue here, and your assertion attempts to invalidate and repudiate
my point of view. I am not offended, but that is an approach which
ends the conversation right there (for me), since it presumes that my
point of view is merely a whim.
For me, it's about being able to read the code with a *low error rate*.
I find I frequently have to read and reread code in order to see
where the braces match up, particularly with the variant ragged-right
styles I continually come across. This gets harder with tired eyes
and long hours, and is a pointless waste of time and source of
errors. Symmetry is far easier to see than asymmetry.
I am a very visually-oriented person, and the asymmetry is
particularly awkward for me. As a photographer, I often see how
strikingly different my perceptions are from another photographer's.
It is NO DIFFERENT with code--and I accept that some people are more
adept at the asymmetric ragged-right style. But NOT ME. It is not a
style that is easy for me, in spite of having to deal with it every
day. I find it frustrating to read it. And unreasonable that others
seem to think that my perceptions are just the same as theirs. They
are not.
I've tried to "get used to it" (no choice, given that it's the
dominant style), but it is always harder for me, and beyond hard,
it's error prone in much of the *actual* code I come across, which is
often inconsistent in its style, even within the same method--there
is no hard and fast rule--it keeps me guessing.
I've commented specifically on the problems I've observed in Byron's
blog.
Lloyd
On Oct 31, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Bill Shannon wrote:
> Lloyd L Chambers wrote:
>> Thanks to Byron for taking the time to code something useful.
>> Given the large amount of code with ragged right braces (more
>> often than not badly misaligned), I'm all for symmetric,
>> consistent braces, which leverage the innate abilities of the
>> human brain to see symmetry, as compared with the semi-random
>> ragged-right disorganized mess that is the alternative. Why is
>> symmetry good in architecture, art, photography, and faces, but
>> somehow inappropriate with code?
>> IMO, comments on brace style are a waste of everyone's time, and
>> *until such time as code reviews push back on the mess we already
>> have, Byron's clean, readable style is a breath of fresh air*.
>
> Geez, I hope we're not going to devolve into another coding style
> argument.
> Speaking from years of experience, it's less about what's "right"
> or even
> "better", and much more about what you're used to. Being different
> than
> what you're used to is what makes code hard to read. We've decided
> what
> coding style we want to use, let's all at least make a passing
> attempt to
> follow it. And yes, in my opinion, all code should be reviewed,
> and all
> code reviews should comment on coding style that doesn't follow our
> guidelines. But I think we've all got better things to do than to
> go back
> and fix all the existing code; fix it when you're in there doing
> something
> else.
>
> And don't forget rule #0 of coding style - blend in. Follow the
> style of
> the code around you, even when you don't like it.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: admin-unsubscribe_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: admin-help_at_glassfish.dev.java.net
>