Thread: Coding style?

Originally posted by Brian
I also think hungarian notation is retarded. You should know what all your variables are anyway, and you should only have a few of them per function.

Maybe I'm biased because its part of my company's coding standards, but I really like using Hungarian.

When you have millions of lines of code, most of it from other people, knowing the variable type just by looking at it really helps. Even a well named variable, like userSelectedDisplayType, could be many different things - a string, int, long, enum, class, etc. I agree that Microsoft takes this to an extreme, but the idea is still a good one.

Also, I follow the startWithLowerCase andEachAdditionalWord getsCapitalized style, but it just feels wrong that one word doesn't get the capital letter. I'd much rather have iStartWithLowerCase, bAndEachAdditionalWord, or sGetsCapitalized.

Maybe its not necessary in smaller or more beautifully written code libraries, but for me hungarian is definitely preferred.

Originally posted by jlou


Also, I follow the startWithLowerCase andEachAdditionalWord getsCapitalized style, but it just feels wrong that one word doesn't get the capital letter. I'd much rather have iStartWithLowerCase, bAndEachAdditionalWord, or sGetsCapitalized.

I prefer my variables to fit on one line.

I prefer the K&R style, but using indent 2, not 4 or even 8. *brrr*

I try to keep everything as simple as possible. Most coding styles want to make things clear but instead, they make everything more complex.
Bad examples (in my opinion) are:

- useless initialization (static int i = 0)
- reinvention of the stdlib (MyMemCpy)
- most typedefs (typedef unsigned int uint)
- useless #defines (#define LOCAL(x) static x)
- functions defined but never used
- inline assembler for non time-consuming functions
- data structures (queues, stacks) implemented via pointers where a simple array would do
- deeply nested functions (call stack > 20)

and, especially: Extreme OOP! I believe that everything is a bunch of computer memory, and not that "everything is an object". ;-) There is a Win32-version of the (excellent!) game "Abuse" out there. Take a look at it and you know what I mean...

- useless initialization (static int i = 0)

How is initalization a bad thing?

Originally posted by Thantos
How is initalization a bad thing?

Initialization is not a bad thing, but _useless_ initialization is. Just because it is nothing good for. Some people often assign variables an initial value that they never use. Like this:

Code:

int a = 0;
int b = 0;
float c = .0;
char *d = NULL;

Hey, I want my code to have meaning! ;-)

(BTW: The compiler already sets static variables to 0.)

(BTW: The compiler already sets static variables to 0.)

I've always been taught to never ever relay (spelling?) on the compiler to initalize anything.