Had another 48hr game jam this weekend...

[Manu]

On 3 September 2013 12:34, Nick Sabalausky <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Sep 2013 11:18:03 +1000
> Manu <turkeyman at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think I've repeated myself 3 or 4 times here, but one more time for
> > good measure...
> >
> > Requiring IDE assistance to make code _readable_ seems completely
> > fail to me.
> > 1) You're not always reading code in your IDE, often in commit logs,
> > diff windows, emails, chat clients.
> > 2) With so much hate for IDE support, it seems like a massive
> > contradiction to say that an IDE should be required to make code
> > readable.
> >
> > Reading code is the most fundamental task in programming. Anything
> > that gets in the way of code readability is an epic fail.
> >
>
> First of all, not everybody agrees that separating out function
> definitions makes code easier to read rather than harder.
>
> Also, maintainability is just as important as readability, and "poor
> maintainability" is a very big and very common objection to C++'s
> separation of member function definitions from class definitions. You're
> essentially writing and maintaining full documentation completely by
> hand and a lot of people feel very bogged down by the extreme
> non-DRYness of that very quickly, especially when there are already so
> many other ways to get the same information without maintaining
> it manually: Automatic Doc generators, high-level IDE class browsing,
> and code folding (and code folding is *not* an IDE thing, but an
> extremely common code editor thing).
>

So then don't write your code that way. I didn't tell you how to write your
code.
I just said I hate inline function definitions, and so do all my
colleagues. It demonstrably slowed us down, and it's annoying.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130904/c298a2fb/attachment-0001.html>