3 ms·

Thanks for this long list. But again, that's missing the point. Everybody has their list of what they do and why. And everybody is pretty convinced that this is

Thanks for this long list. But again, that's missing the point. Everybody has their list of what they do and why. And everybody is pretty convinced that this is how it ought to be and they have good reasons. I'm not saying yours are wrong. But for most of your points, I know people who'd argue the exact opposite. And they give good reasons too. Point is that we don't have a shared, common, well-defined core in our industry. A list that everybody adheres to. Our lists are not in sync. The variety of programming languages that people can choose from now does not help either. Standard practice in one language is a cardinal sin in another. Different patterns, different principles, different paradigms. People mix and match freely.

adam_arthur 6y ago
My point is that most people's "list" is not rooted in objectivity at all. I provide objective and concrete reasoning for why these style elements are beneficial. In the wild I rarely see people justify their style with strong convictions. Again, different people can reach different conclusions given the same evidence, so there will never be a universally correct way to do things. But there's also is a lot that's done by convention that's hard to justify objectively. The biggest faux pas I see is pushing implementation details to the forefront. There are arguments to be made that this can be beneficial in some contexts, such as algorithms where you want a "single pane of glass" into what's happening. But you can also objectively specify those contexts and when a style is more applicable to one context vs another. So long story short, no, there is no best style. Yes, you can objectively quantify why a style is good or not, and in which contexts. Beyond specific style elements, there is a philosophy underlying the readability of code style and will eventually become a big part of education in software IMO.
- wildmanx 6y ago
  Looks like we agree in principle. Other industries/areas have firmly established standards. Our industry needs those too, badly. Not just for style, but overall for design and architecture. Maybe it's because software development is so easily accessible that we don't have them yet. To become a surgeon, you need to go to med school for an eternity. To become a construction engineer you need training and government certification. Both areas move slowly, compared to programming. In our industry, a language that's older than 10 years is called "mature" and the hipsters leave it for a younger one. And the next 16-year old can jump right in. That's not bad, it keeps our industry exciting, but it does not allow us to establish rules everybody agrees to, applies and defends.

adam_arthur 6y ago

My point is that most people's "list" is not rooted in objectivity at all. I provide objective and concrete reasoning for why these style elements are beneficial. In the wild I rarely see people justify their style with strong convictions. Again, different people can reach different conclusions given the same evidence, so there will never be a universally correct way to do things. But there's also is a lot that's done by convention that's hard to justify objectively. The biggest faux pas I see is pushing implementation details to the forefront. There are arguments to be made that this can be beneficial in some contexts, such as algorithms where you want a "single pane of glass" into what's happening. But you can also objectively specify those contexts and when a style is more applicable to one context vs another. So long story short, no, there is no best style. Yes, you can objectively quantify why a style is good or not, and in which contexts. Beyond specific style elements, there is a philosophy underlying the readability of code style and will eventually become a big part of education in software IMO.

wildmanx 6y ago
Looks like we agree in principle. Other industries/areas have firmly established standards. Our industry needs those too, badly. Not just for style, but overall for design and architecture. Maybe it's because software development is so easily accessible that we don't have them yet. To become a surgeon, you need to go to med school for an eternity. To become a construction engineer you need training and government certification. Both areas move slowly, compared to programming. In our industry, a language that's older than 10 years is called "mature" and the hipsters leave it for a younger one. And the next 16-year old can jump right in. That's not bad, it keeps our industry exciting, but it does not allow us to establish rules everybody agrees to, applies and defends.