Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!kth.se!sunic!mcsun!i2unix!dist.dist.unige.it!foobar
From: foobar@dist.dist.unige.it (Maurizio Vitale)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Documenting OO Systems
Keywords: operators
Message-ID: <1991Mar30.083135.2460@dist.unige.it>
Date: 30 Mar 91 08:31:35 GMT
References: <jls.669768656@rutabaga> <299@orbit.gtephx.UUCP> <1991Mar25.145441.1@happy.colorado.edu> <20106@alice.att.com> <3481@engadm3.csd.mot.com> <DWWX.91Mar25215016@cbnewsk.ATT.COM> <jls.669956827@rutabaga> <1991Mar26.191259.14470@i88.isc.com> <4693@osc.COM> <jl
Sender: news@dist.unige.it (USENET Superuser)
Reply-To: foobar@dist.dist.unige.it (Maurizio Vitale)
Organization: DIST - Universita` di Genova, Italy
Lines: 70

In article <jls.670218725@rutabaga>, jls@rutabaga.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
|> >One thing i like about C is that when you type something you know what it's
|> >going to do.
|> 
|> Okay, what is this going to do?:
|> 
|>     int j (int y, int m, int d) {
|>     int m_d[12] = {31,28,31,30,31,30,31,31,30,31,30,31};
|>     if (m<1 || m>12) return 0;
|>     int l = !(y%4) && y&400;
|>     if (d<1 || d>(m_d[m-1] + (m==2 && y))) return 0;
|>     int dd = 0;
|>     for (int i=0; i<m-1; i++) dd += m_d[i];
|>     return dd + d + (m>2 && y);
|>     }
|> 
|> You should be able to tell me right off the bat--you think English sucks
|> as a programming language, and this is DEFINITELY not written in English.
|> --
|> ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own, except in
|>       the realm of software engineering, in which case I've borrowed
|>       them from incredibly smart people.

I   absoulutely  do not  want  to start  a flame  war,  but please  do
consider:

	1. It has only take a double  read of your  code (please trust
me) to understand  that your function does return  the number of  days
elapsed between the  1.st of january  of the year  and the date  it is
given   has argument (providethey are  in   the same year,  no  check,
limited  usefulness, definetly bad SWE). The  double read has been due
to the fact that I was biased from  the first lines into thinking that
the function returned the day of the week, the last lines cleared this
out and the second read confirmed the new interpretation.

	2.  Giving  variables single  letters name  (even  if at least
onest initials)  is  definetly   bad  programming practice  in   *ANY*
language.

	3. English  (as any other naural  language for that matter) is
definetly  *NOT* a good programming language.  Take   some good writer
(expecially philosophers) and try to understand at the first read what
they are saying. Then try to find more than two people  and a computer
who understand the same thing  from what they had read.  Either you've
got the point or you'll definetly never get it.

	4. The original poster did  mean that the  *one* who write the
code is able to understand what the computer will do of it, *NOT* that
anyone is  able to  tell at  the first glance  what someone else write
down.

	5. I hope that the "incredibly smart people" have some more
substantial opinion in the "realm of software engineering" over those
they have passed to you.

To end my argument I hope that people end arguing which language is the best to write bad code and start writing good code (the really brave could carry on producing better languages)

I will not answer to more than one follow up to this since I've more important things to do in my spare time.

			Maurizio
-- 

----------

e-mail: Maurizio.Vitale@dist.dist.unige.it

s-mail: Maurizio Vitale
	via Monaco Simone 1/14
	16148 - GENOVA
		ITALIA