Re: The joy of FORTRAN

In article <vqanht$2l4q6$1@dont-email.me>,
Pancho  <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:

On 3/3/25 00:16, Dan Cross wrote:

John Ousterhout recently published the contents of a written
"debate" he had with Robert C Martin that went into this at some
length.  With the caveat that I think Martin is a charlatan,
folks here might find it interesting and relevant.

>
I'm not sure how old you are, but I get the feeling Robert C Martin is
writing for young people. I only became aware of him when my son was
given his  book as part of his required reading for his first job.
>
I was quite impressed. Martin seemed to me to be giving reasonable
practical advice. How to decompose problems into code is something new
programmers seem to find difficult. It is something not taught well at
university.

I'm not nearly so cheritable about his book, I'm afraid.  Martin
is looking for dupes to take as for a mark.

At best, he reminds me of Herb Schildt.  Some of his advice is
ok, but it's clear he himself doesn't have a great command of
the domain.  I suspect he targets people who are earlier in
their careers because those who are more seasoned can see
through his more egregious recommendations, and don't need those
that are closer to trivial.  When you can see past the dogma, it
is much less compelling.

https://github.com/johnousterhout/aposd-vs-clean-code/blob/main/README.md
 

>
The problem with the prime generator examples is not the comments,
naming or decomposition into smaller functions, although I prefer the
single function version. No, the problem is they do not explain what the
algorithm is, relating it to the well-known Sieve of Eratosthenes and
the Fundamental theorem of Arithmetic. Once you understand it is very
similar to the Sieve of Eratosthenes, with a memory saving adaption, it
is easy to understand the code. It is not easy to understand the
algorithm from the code. If it was my code, I would preface it with a
block English language comment overview of the algorithm.

That is one of the problems in his version.  Beyond that, it is
simply wrong in several ways.  One wondered if he tried to run
it, let alone test it.

So much of understanding complex code is conceptually mapping new code
to well understood patterns or algorithms.

Agreed.

- Dan C.