Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site wivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wivax!mckeeman
From: mckeeman@wivax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang
Subject: Re: Forced Commenting
Message-ID: <19068@wivax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Jan-84 11:13:45 EST
Article-I.D.: wivax.19068
Posted: Thu Jan  5 11:13:45 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Jan-84 02:25:05 EST
Sender: mckeeman@wivax.UUCP
Organization: Wang Institute, Tyngsboro, Ma.  01879
Lines: 20

Teaching systems have tried enforcing certain style
requirements.  I once had a no-paragraph-punisher for PL/I,
and a comment counter.  The former was quite interesting.
Within two weeks, I could have turned it off, NOBODY
violated the conventions after that.  The comment counter
was less successful.  What it did was force the student to
write comments, so that the grader could evaluate them.  It
stopped the /* increment i */ kind of comments.  My rule
was a comment for every procedure, begin and do.  What I
mainly learned was that no simple rule would do, and spent
a lot of time defending the comment counter algorithm,
instead of evaluating the quality of the comments.
Incidentally, failure to pass the style checks prevented
execution...

It is my present opinion that a static analyzer, style
analyzer should precede compilation, and be passed before
compilation is allowed.  Thus the program {x=1; x=2} could
not be compiled because x is not used after it is set.
Fortunately I am not teaching programming right now...