Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:14730 comp.unix.wizards:13454
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ncar!tank!mimsy!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Standards (was Re: indentation:  enough already!)
Message-ID: <9166@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 14 Dec 88 06:15:24 GMT
References: <3229@ingr.UUCP> <253@athertn.Atherton.COM>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 12

In article <253@athertn.Atherton.COM> paul@athertn.Atherton.COM (Paul Sander) writes:
>So it would seem that for many of us (especially those who work for
>government contractors), coding standards are there and will not go away.

I've read quite a few DoD coding standards, data format standards,
program documentation requirements, etc.  They're generally pretty
horrible, requiring products that I personally would consider
inexcusably poor workmanship!

As with most government regulations, the root problem stems from
the attempt to achieve a desirable goal by micro-specifying the
details, rather than requiring that the goal be met.  As with all
forms of micro-management, it interferes with productivity.