C Indentation Survey Results (long...)

Jim Shankland jas at rtech.ARPA
Thu May 2 03:21:24 AEST 1985


Henry Spencer has concisely and eloquently summed up the case against
prettyprinters:

> 	A paragrapher cannot judge the programmer's intent, and hence cannot
> 	do as good a job of displaying it as the programmer can.
> 	Paragraphers should be used to deal with emergencies, not as a
> 	substitute for doing it right the first time.

But I don't buy it.  In most cases, the program's syntax DOES (or should)
accurately reflect the programmer's intent.  In cases when it doesn't,
variant formatting may hinder, rather than help, comprehension:  when
a program's syntactic structure is clearly and consistently reflected
in a display style selected by the reader of the code, the attention
of the reader can focus on the MEANING of the code:  the "programmer's
intent."

Given the choice between seeing a piece of code displayed in a syntactically
consistent way selected by me, and seeing the code displayed in a
syntactically variant way selected by the original programmer, with
the variants intended to give me clues about the programmer's intent,
I will gladly select the former option.

Let me restate my case by altering Henry's statement above to make
a (specious) argument against the use of high-level languages:

	A compiler cannot judge the programmer's intent, and
	hence cannot do as good a job of generating code as the
	programmer can.  High-level languages should be used
	only for emergencies, and are no substitute for the
	programmer's hand-coding the algorithm in the first place.

Jim Shankland
Relational Technnology, Inc.
ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!jas
ihnp4!pegasus!rtech!jas

The opinions expressed above may not be shared by my dog.



More information about the Comp.lang.c mailing list