The continuing i++ saga .. let's endit

[John A. Mariani]

In article <95 at brl-tgr.ARPA> DHowell.ES at Xerox.ARPA writes:
>
>Here is my basic opinion:  Programs should be as readable as possible so
>that people who need to look at the code can understand it easily.  If a
>program is harder to read, it is harder to understand, and thus harder
>to change, debug, update, or whatever.  

Here follows the usual stuff which we *all* know already re the above
stuff .... (which I have mercifully deleted) ..

>---Concerning readability---
>
>I have stated that i = i + 1 was more readable than i++.  The reason is
>Just as readable (or even more so) is "increment i", seen in some
>languages in some form or another.  

I've never seen this (thank God!) ... that's not to say I don't believe it,
I'm just glad I've never had to use such a language!

>The comment
>
>  i++;  /* increment i */
>
>has been called a non-comment, and it is for C programmers, but if any
>non-C programmer needs to look at it (which you say never happens, but
>I'm sure it happens more than you think) it is helpful.

This is the crux ... when *does* this ever happen! Look, if U've got to
read a program written in an unknown language and U come across a *really*
common statement, U *go and look it up*!!! If U can't do that, U shouldn't
be reading the program in the first place. This statement is *perfectly*
readable to anyone who has read any C documentation.

This argument is now a DEAD HORSE. We are all *sick* of it. If a language
provides a construct *and* it is an efficient one (both in terms of
keystrokes and machine code produced) I hope you have enough sense to use
it!

Let's get back to serious matters....

-- 
UUCP:  ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!jam 
DARPA: jam%lancs.comp at ucl-cs	| Post: University of Lancaster,
JANET: jam at uk.ac.lancs.comp	|	Department of Computing,
Phone: +44 524 65201 ext 4467	|	Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK.