Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!im4u!ut-sally!ut-emx!juniper!opus!bobd
From: bobd@opus.UUCP (Bob Donaldson)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Style rules for C shops
Message-ID: <307@opus.UUCP>
Date: 26 Apr 88 22:22:25 GMT
References: <528@vsi.UUCP> <1066@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Distribution: comp
Lines: 27
Summary: The point is not multiple cooks
	 The point is, what do you do when the old cook retires?

In article <1066@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
> /*	many lines of commentary on C style enforcers	*/
>
> But also, these personalized pretty-printers shouldn't get much use,
> because the only case where one person should work on another person's
> code is when the responsibility for that piece of code changes hands as
> well.  (The "too many cooks" argument - with software, as with *most*
> other things, I believe that "too many" means "more than one".)  The
> project should be split up sufficiently that any given routine is the
> province of exactly one programmer.  If you have two or more people
> working on some piece of code, it's time to subdivide it and parcel the
> pieces out.
> 
This misses the point - the idea behind consistent style is to reduce
the life-cycle cost of software.  This includes not only the current
development task, but also subsequent maintenance tasks, enhancement
projects and (last but not least) software reuse.  Unless we intend
to be chained to any software we write forEVER we better learn to live
with style guidelines that lower these costs for our employers.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Donaldson              ...!ut-emx!juniper!radian!bobd
Radian Corporation
PO Box 201088              (512) 454-4797
Austin, TX  78703

Views expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer.