StudlyCaps wrote:
I don't want to discourage you SpectateSwamp, but if that is really your work, you should focus on learning some good programming practises. It really is quite poorly written.
That's the problem. If you look at his
posts on what.thedailywtf.com (NSFW, to say the least - not Swampy's posts, but almost everyone else's,
including my own), you'll find that he's
advocating - vociferously - for this approach to programming, and insists that 'noodling' is the only proper way to write code.
He feels that spaghetti code is easier to write, read, and understand than structured code, and insists that structured code is 'unreadable'. He also claims that all competent programmers really 'jam' their code the same way he does, and that advocates of other approaches are nothing more than a handful of 'perfect perfects' shouting down the ones who point this out.
A few relevant quotes from that thread and related ones:
SpectateSwamp wrote:
Probably because I LOVE Line Numbers too. They tried to Steal line numbers from You but SSDS has brought them BACK. Every possible error must come from within this ONE module (how simple). I can just jam it and jam it till things fail.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
Nested statements look like an eagle flying across the page and aren't that readable.
To be fair you'd need a copy of VB5 to jam it like I do. So you are somewhat handicapped.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
Yup the "programmatically corrects" got rid of the line numbers but we can use pseudo line numbers.
When I want to make a change. I don't have to consider what other routines need to be considered. There aren't any.
SpecatateSwamp wrote:
Spaghetti code spawns serendipity not so with structured code. I can jam my code through trial and error and get results. Structured is not so flexible
90% of the greatest programmers coded noodle code.
I'm against anything done in the name of efficiency... unless it makes the code easier to understand.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
It's not the code that counts it's the results.
The topic remains unchallenged...
There are a few examples in the code that the "perfect perfects" wouldn't like or may even drive them crazy
What about keep it simple don't you understand?
I have no problem diving back into code I wrote nearly 20 years ago.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
Computers are thousands of times faster now...
Anybody that worries about performance is STUPID.
Here:SpectateSwamp wrote:
Maybe try Cobol or Fortran versions. There are probably more Cobol apps running businesses than Basic. They at least have GOTO's. How can you do any jamming it, without a simple GOTO to skip around some untested logic or past a display that you want to disable or view only when running in "test mode" Those overly nested systems have code looking like a bird flying across the screen. GoTo's clean that up. Local error trapping makes the code even more useless. I do most error checking using an "on_error routine" to simplify things and for testing. Good Example: Mid 80's. I had FlowCharted the billing, workorder and monthend ... logic for the CableSystem I was working at. Doing a 2 or 3 page chart for each. Not displaying the unimportant checks. Just those that were significant. After returning from a 2 month off-site conversion. I found that most of my charts were thrown out and the rest were in the process of being replaced with 10 to 12 pages for each function. I should have made copies. I should have made copies. It was easier to go directly to the program than look at those next to useless line for line flowcharts. That's the main reason for having all or most of the error checking moved down to an exception handling area for this Search. Far more understandable Far more easy to jam and test. This Search wasn't created by a Genius. So It doesn't need a bigger Genius to maintain or upgrade it. Much easier to test out 1 simple program that's Centrally trapped, Than a 100 or more adjunct parts that make it next to impossible to extend or upgrade. Better quit yapping and put in The jerky jerk backwards option. At the same time allow for a fast forward video playback. Watch out for those Systems that were written by a Genius. What are you going to do when your programmer gets old and sick. Or dies in a fiery crash. What are you going to do.
Yup if that language can't support this style of programming it ain't worth squat
We need a society to protect Cobol Fortran and Basic. No perfect perfects allowed.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
Nobody shares computer knowledge better than this
Years ago a friend and mentor (Grant Cook) said that on the next system he developed all the data files would be TEXT only. Forget the integer, real and other numeric formats.
I'm a firm believer in that. When you need to do a data fix, how easy it is to use a simple text edit program like notepad.
I really love line numbers those that are against, don't have any idea how simple they make things. A magical noodle here and there and serendipitous events sometimes happen.
If they take away "goto's" I'm be sunk. Few of the purist programmers would have hired me for my coding methods. I wouldn't hire any of them either.
SpectateSwamp wrote:
[Pre-emptive multitasking is a]nother stupid idea by Microsoft. Right up there after taking away line numbers.
Probably all to speed things up. You have to have slow code to make use of the computer power we have today. SSDS is poised to make good use of quantum computing.. Bring it on.