|
Heh, I actually thought of that line while i typed what I did.
But I can't go around quoting hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy all the time, despite having basically memorized the series.
Douglas Adams was a regular Mark Twain.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
to each her own . as for me i utilize word wrap . rules ? nonsense . my one and only rule is it must be easy to understand but no easier .
|
|
|
|
|
A long time ago, I read about a study - in a printed periodical, so no URL - where a number of test persons were split into two groups and given the same source code to study. One group got it laid out like ordinary prose, the way you would write a plain text? ("If the rain stops, let's go to the beach. Otherwise, let's break a bottle of wine!" in a single line). The other group got the same program laid out "the programming way", with conditions, if- and else-clauses on separate lines, with proper indentations etc. Similar for loops and other constructs.
After the test persons had been given a controlled amount of time to study the code, they were to fill in a questionnaire to reveal how well they had understood the program logic. It turned out that those who had read the "prose formatted" program code scored significantly higher than those who had been reading the "program structured" layout.
This is so many years ago that the average person still could be expected to read both fiction and non-fiction books. Today, lots of young people never read a novel after the Harry Potter books (which they chose when school required them to pick one novel to read). So maybe the results would be different today, with lots of people inexperienced with extracting meaning unless it is conveyed both in text, semantics highlighted with punctuation and structure mediated through blocks and indentation.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
They probably require that it be read to them while they do pilates.
|
|
|
|
|
A citation would be helpful.
Gus Gustafson
|
|
|
|
|
Wrap baby, wrap (rather than Burn baby, burn)
Paul Sanders.
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter - Blaise Pascal.
Some of my best work is in the undo buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Diagonal mode wastes so much real estate with these triangles at the edges of the monitor.
It just makes zero sense. And the conclusion that 22 degrees is the optimal angle is also not backed by any proof. AFAIR the article just said that "it was researched", which was.. weird.
|
|
|
|
|
So you are saying that they get maybe three really long lines and then they have to make do with 20 or 30 lines that are maybe 10 characters or less.
Sounds like a fitting punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
If it gets too long vertically then we can combine multiple approaches.
In my code I don't get to 20 or 30 lines that are part of a single statement.. but if it happened to me, I'd probably split it up into multiple statements. It would probably also make it easier to debug/troubleshoot.
|
|
|
|
|
obeobe wrote: the conclusion that 22 degrees is the optimal angle is also not backed by any proof
Must depend on the aspect ratio of the particular monitor. When that is known it should be really simple to calculate what angle to tilt the monitor in order to have the diagonal become horizontal.
Other than that, I find the concept of diagonal mode hilarious  . And yes, a complete waste of space on the other parts of the screen.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: it should be really simple to calculate what angle to tilt the monitor in order to have the diagonal become horizontal.
Yes, but where's the proof that making the diagonal horizontal is optimal for developers? (or for any other use case, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes - *that* proof. Totally agree. That assertion *must* have been written tounge-in-cheek  . At least, I very much hope so
|
|
|
|
|
Makes one wonder...
If you use multiple monitors how does one arrange that?
Side by side - so two diamonds with the points touching?
Or one on top of the first so it is flat to first one?
And what happens when you get a person that thinks 5 monitors is a good idea?
|
|
|
|
|
If it doesn't fit on a punch card it's too long.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it April 1 already? Wait. This isn't a joke?
|
|
|
|
|
I do actually find myself trying to stick to 80 lines, but some expressions just end up longer than that, with LINQ and so on - and in some cases, splitting the line makes it less readable.
It's like this guy in a bar - the bartender bet him he couldn't drink the contents of the spittoon, so off he went, gagging and choking and turning blue, and kept going long after the bartender told him he could stop - and finally made it - and the bartender said, "Why didn't you stop?" and he replied, "I couldn't: it was all in one solid lump!"
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Sutton wrote: end up longer than that, with LINQ and so on
LINQ itself lends (pretty much requires) longer lines but they can certainly be formatted.
This is similar to formatting SQL in C#, Java, C++, etc when it is a string. The first try always starts out as one long string until one understands that it can be formatted in a way that makes it readable.
Dan Sutton wrote: and in some cases, splitting the line makes it less readable.
Not sure I believe that. But one can certainly reformat a long line in a way that makes it confusing. But that is a formatting problem rather than that the technique itself is flawed.
A long line pretty much starts out being difficult to read/understand regardless of how it is formatted.
Long lines will have 'parts'. So for example LINQ for a db has a data object, clauses, etc. SQL as a string has the same thing. If you write SQL in a stored proc it can be formatted in the same way.
Keep in mind of course that for C#/Java/C++ line breaks are not required. So one can write a method (and even a class) on few or even one line. But very few would claim that is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - I understand how to program. But sometimes, it just doesn't make sense to split the line. Often, it does. But not always.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a better video than that article that debunks Agile:
Agile & Scrum Don't Work | Allen Holub In The Engineering Room Ep. 9 - YouTube[^]
These guys make a lot of sense -- and they explain that Scrum is a alteration of Agile to make it fit companies and ruins the original heart of Agile. And, that SaFE is just totally wrong.
The only thing in Agile that really matters are the principles from the original manifesto, the rest is people trying to make money off it.
|
|
|
|
|
Reminds me of a bus conversation i overheard more than 10 years ago (bus full of developers going for work)
Person 1: What development methodology does your team follow?
Person 2: Waterfallish agile.
Learnt a new buzzword on that day.
|
|
|
|
|
Boss: We're switching to Agile.
Team: We've been agile all along.
Boss: But now we'll use Scrum.
Team: Scrum won't work for our project and it will actually slow us down.
Any system for working with a large backlog of work to perform, by definition requires a large backlog of work to perform. Many managers tend not to understand that. The Agile and Scrum folk don't seem to mention the circumstances in which their systems may help.
|
|
|
|
|
After lengthy meetings, I often see people doing sprints to the coffee machine, to be first in line.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah the simple joys of childhood, having a dog and a sense of wonder at the simplest of things. How I miss them.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
