4 ms·

That's more of an argument for them being overused, not for them being useless.

• squiggleblaz 5y ago
  It's an argument for a certain code style, characterised by descriptive names and specific types. This calls for a language capable of e.g. doing maths with user-defined types, which not all languages can do. I think one of the major motivators for the original style of code are legacy pressures and a concern about code width. If every other function that manipulates temperature set points takes "int sp", then you're going to get a lot of pressure for consistency. A lot of programmers regard consistency as a goal in and of itself, and it's very easy to demand it during a code review. However, the demand for consistency prevents us from finding a new consistent target without excessive amounts of work. It may be better to reach a new consistency within a narrower scope, as long as a consensus has been reached to extended that consistency outwards. In this system, consistency should be viewed as a compromisable target: something that makes you ask a careful question. And when asking a question, take into consideration the propensity of the code author to view a question as a demand. If you're a senior and the code author is a junior, presume that means: ask a genuine question vocally; write down minutes of your discussion. The code width concern is a bit silly, but for some reason we assume that things get weird when lines exceed 80 characters. That's easy to do.