1. [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
<http://mindprod.com/unmain.html>
2. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
- Posted by jjnick at cvn.com
Apr 24, 2001
> <http://mindprod.com/unmain.html>
Wow, great page Ted!!!
3. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
Ted,
Thank you! Nice to know that someone's taken the time to put into writing
what we've known for all these years. I only missed one thing, namely the
insertion of phony condition testing, as in
if a = a then ...
Or, better yet, conditionals that enclose assuredly non-executable code, as
in 'if a > a ...', followed by a few dozen lines of seemingly vital code. Of
course, you'd never use 'a' in both cases, but equivalent variables with
different names, preferably meaningful and unrelated.
And what better language to do all this than good old COBOL, which actually
prompts you to write something that looks like English. What might a young
programmer's attitude be, the poor kid, weaned on C, Java and perhaps Visual
Basic, before the presence of a sentence reading
PERFORM ONSTAGE THROUGH INSISTENCE,
VARYING TECHNIQUE FROM HAPHAZARD TO IMPOSSIBLE,
UNTIL FIRED.
Gerardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Fines" <fines at macalester.edu>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 10:52 AM
Subject: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
>
> <http://mindprod.com/unmain.html>
>
4. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
----- Original Message -----
From: Gerardo <gebrandariz at YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
> Ted,
>
> Thank you! Nice to know that someone's taken the time to put into writing
> what we've known for all these years. I only missed one thing, namely the
> insertion of phony condition testing, as in
>
> if a = a then ...
>
> Or, better yet, conditionals that enclose assuredly non-executable code,
as
> in 'if a > a ...', followed by a few dozen lines of seemingly vital code.
Of
> course, you'd never use 'a' in both cases, but equivalent variables with
> different names, preferably meaningful and unrelated.
>
> And what better language to do all this than good old COBOL, which
actually
> prompts you to write something that looks like English. What might a young
> programmer's attitude be, the poor kid, weaned on C, Java and perhaps
Visual
> Basic, before the presence of a sentence reading
>
> PERFORM ONSTAGE THROUGH INSISTENCE,
> VARYING TECHNIQUE FROM HAPHAZARD TO IMPOSSIBLE,
> UNTIL FIRED.
>
> Gerardo
Moderately funny, but most of all a sheer waste of everybody's time!
Fritz.
5. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
Wow! Are you this much fun at parties, too?!
--On Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:57:19 AM +0200 j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl
wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gerardo <gebrandariz at YAHOO.COM>
> To: EUforum <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
>
>
>> Ted,
>>
>> Thank you! Nice to know that someone's taken the time to put into writing
>> what we've known for all these years. I only missed one thing, namely the
>> insertion of phony condition testing, as in
>>
>> if a = a then ...
>>
>> Or, better yet, conditionals that enclose assuredly non-executable code,
> as
>> in 'if a > a ...', followed by a few dozen lines of seemingly vital code.
> Of
>> course, you'd never use 'a' in both cases, but equivalent variables with
>> different names, preferably meaningful and unrelated.
>>
>> And what better language to do all this than good old COBOL, which
> actually
>> prompts you to write something that looks like English. What might a
>> young programmer's attitude be, the poor kid, weaned on C, Java and
>> perhaps
> Visual
>> Basic, before the presence of a sentence reading
>>
>> PERFORM ONSTAGE THROUGH INSISTENCE,
>> VARYING TECHNIQUE FROM HAPHAZARD TO IMPOSSIBLE,
>> UNTIL FIRED.
>>
>> Gerardo
>
> Moderately funny, but most of all a sheer waste of everybody's time!
>
> Fritz.
>
>
>
>
>
6. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
----- Original Message -----
From: <j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
>
> Moderately funny, but most of all a sheer waste of everybody's time!
Why?
------
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"To finish a job quickly, go slower."
7. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
----- Original Message -----
From: <j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl>
T>
> Moderately funny, but most of all a sheer waste of everybody's time!
>
> Fritz.
Or, to a experienced programmer, a very good guide to writing maintainable
code.
Regards,
Irv
8. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl>
> T>
> > Moderately funny, but most of all a sheer waste of everybody's time!
> >
> > Fritz.
>
> Or, to a experienced programmer, a very good guide to writing maintainable
> code.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
>
Oh, sorry, I thought writing maintanable code was what it takes to call
yourself
a experienced programmer!
Greetings!
Fritz
9. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
----- Original Message -----
From: <j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl>
> >
> Oh, sorry, I thought writing maintanable code was what it takes to call
> yourself a experienced programmer!
>
> Greetings!
> Fritz
It's obviously not a prerequisite:
I've seen a lot of code from those who call themselves experienced
programmers,
and much of it contains at least some of the obfuscations and outright
mistakes noted
in that article.
Sometimes I'm sure the intent was to write unmaintainable code - job
security, you know -
but more often than not I believe it wasn't intentional, just an accident or
bad habits.
I have made some of the same mistakes myself, only to stumble over them
later,
since I am generally responsible for maintaining my own code.
Regards,
Irv
10. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
Fritz.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Irv and Ted. The matter of maintainable
code is not a trivial question. I'm not sure it should even be labeled off
topic, since my experience has been that there are a lot of people around
that can certainly write code, compile and have a program up and running,
but have no knowledge of logic, structure and elegance. Matters that go far
beyond programming and design and relate to a good education and good
thinking habits.
Many do, many don't. Many don't feel the need at all. An experienced
programmer is someone who knows how to design and write a program. Who can
look at the world, or imagine a need, and produce code that will do the job.
No more, no less. A program can function properly and be a disastrous mess.
Mostly accident or bad habits, says Irv, and I have to agree. The page Ted
pointed us to is a good teaching job. Nobody should be offended, and who
shall dare throw the first stone?
Good languages, good databases will let you do almost anything. I've worked
with a Fortran compiler that would accept as valid a source file containing
a single asterisk (a comment). It's up to you to do something nice with
them, and program maintainability (even for yourself, a year later!) is a
pointer towards your ability to write well, i.e. to think clearly.
Let me put it this way. If someone built a car the way some programs are
written, would you buy it? Would you drive it? Would you want your neighbor
to own one?
Gerardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Irv Mullins" <irvm at ellijay.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <j.f.deneken at hccnet.nl>
>
> > >
> > Oh, sorry, I thought writing maintanable code was what it takes to call
> > yourself a experienced programmer!
> >
> > Greetings!
> > Fritz
>
> It's obviously not a prerequisite:
>
> I've seen a lot of code from those who call themselves experienced
> programmers,
> and much of it contains at least some of the obfuscations and outright
> mistakes noted
> in that article.
>
> Sometimes I'm sure the intent was to write unmaintainable code - job
> security, you know -
> but more often than not I believe it wasn't intentional, just an accident
or
> bad habits.
> I have made some of the same mistakes myself, only to stumble over them
> later,
> since I am generally responsible for maintaining my own code.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
11. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
On 26 Apr 2001, at 0:05, Gerardo wrote:
<snip>
> Let me put it this way. If someone built a car the way some programs are
> written, would you buy it? Would you drive it? Would you want your neighbor to
> own one?
Actually, Car is older than win95, by 16 years, and i wish the OS was as
reliable and easy to fix as Car is!
Kat
12. Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
Kat,
You. Got. Me.
But then, after some twenty seconds of brain freeze, my fingers took over,
and ...
Will you please attend to
http://www.macworld.com/2001/01/opinion/desktop.html? Thank you.
Gerardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kat" <gertie at PELL.NET>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OFF TOPIC] Required reading for programmers
> Actually, Car is older than win95, by 16 years, and i wish the OS was as
> reliable and easy to fix as Car is!
>
> Kat
