From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 22 10:25:56 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB65C37B401 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from serenity.mcc.ac.uk (serenity.mcc.ac.uk [130.88.200.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0037E43F93 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:25:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org) Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org ([130.88.200.97]) by serenity.mcc.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1981Wg-000No1-Du for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:25:50 +0100 Received: from dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) h3MHPoPe065182 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:25:50 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from jcm@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org) Received: (from jcm@localhost) by dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h3MHPne2065181 for freebsd-chat@freebsd.org; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:25:49 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:25:49 +0100 From: Jonathon McKitrick To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20030422172549.GA65023@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> References: <20030422132906.GB64101@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org> <444r4qmp6n.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <444r4qmp6n.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Score: -15.2 (---------------) X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1981Wg-000No1-Du*JecQXEYszZU* Subject: Re: Code layout and debugging time X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:25:57 -0000 On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 01:12:32PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: : Jonathon McKitrick writes: : : > I was just reading an interesting statement in Code Complete: : : Ah. You are trying to indoctrinate yourself into Microsoft's ideas of : good practices. Thanks for warning us. Well, it was given to me by a software manager here at work. But I have been modeling my code largely after style(9). Frankly, I think my code is far more readable as a result. But in the process of surveying the source tree, as well as the rationale in this MSFT press book, I thought it raised some interesting questions. -----8<-------------- : > Doesn't this seem to contradict the idea that clear, well-formatted code : > with lots of blank lines is easier to read and understand? How could : > debugging be any different? : : No contradiction at all. It just shows that the definition of "lots : of blank lines" is somewhere below 16%. Assuming we can trust the : study (but it sounds about right to me). Sixteen percent would mean every 6 lines or so. That seems far too dense in my opinion. Even when you look at hardware drivers in the kernel, there are often only 1 or 2 lines together, separated from the rest by comments and whitespace. I just don't get how debug time would 'increase dramatically.' NOTE: Please CC me, as I am not currently subscribed. Thanks. jm -- My other computer is your windows box.