🚀 go-pugleaf

vance,
	in response to your posting about 'good' code, i agree with your
definition of good code being code that can be understood and changed
easily, but there is an implicit assumption about a reader's experience
and ability to understand code...  clearly, a program doesn't have to
document in complete detail the theory and nature of its algorithms,
unless you would want to include chapters from Knuth in the header
comment of every module.
	i think that the modularity is important, and this is one place
that pascal falls down, but apparently modula2 makes up for it... the
really good aspect of pascal/modula2 is that complex data types are
very easy to clearly declare... types of types, etc., and this is 
supported in the parameter definition syntax for subroutines, etc.
	a major advantage of C is its 'economy of expression', which,
when combined with modular programming habits (no module is larger than
one page, top down design) makes it easy for a reader to see the 'big
picture' of the code.
	i don't think that these languages lack any tools to write good
code, but the responsibility still lies with the programmer to practice
modular programming.  perhaps a first approximation to enforcing good
code is to write a shell for writing source code that enforces a minimum
documentation and modular programming standard... enforces a top down
approach by limiting all code sections to one page, and enforces 
documentation by requiring the programmer to complete a minimum required
header comment documenting all significant data structures.
	i am not saying that this needs to be dictated to a programming
team, but i am sure that any programming team familiar with large
projects is familiar with these types of concepts and could decide on
standards by committee.


-- 
			Brad Banko
			Columbus, Ohio
			(formerly ...!decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!btb)
			btb%ncoast@mandrill.cwru.edu

"The only thing we have to fear on this planet is man."
			-- Carl Jung, 1875-1961