OT: on IDEs and code writing on steroids

[Lutger]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
...
>> 
> this I completely disagree with. those are the same faulty reasons I 
> already answered.
> an IDE does _not_ create bad programmers, and does _not_ encourage bad 
> code. it does encourage descriptive names which is a _good_ thing.
> 
> writing "strcpy" ala C style is cryptic and *wrong*. code is read 
> hundred times more than it's written and a better name would be for 
> instance - "stringCopy".
> it's common nowadays to have tera-byte sized HDD so why people try to 
> save a few bytes from their source while sacrificing readability?
...

This is not what I was saying. 

I'm not talking about strcpy vs stringCopy. stringCopy is short. I'm talking 
about things like SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault.

And this example isn't even so bad. Fact is, it is easier to come up with long 
identifiers and there is no penalty in the form of typing cost for doing so. 

It's not about bad programmers (or saving bytes, that's just ridiculous), but IDE 
does encourage some kind of constructs because they are easier in that 
environment. Good programmers come up with good, descriptive names, whether they 
program in an IDE or not. 

At work I must program in VB.NET. This language is pretty verbose in describing 
even the most common things. It's easier to parse when you're new to the 
language, but after a while I find all the verbosity gets in the way of 
readability.