Screw that. I've been writing code for 15 years, and Allman style braces make it so much easier to mentally parse code into blocks that they're worth every single LOC. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not working on an 80x24 terminal anymore.
I just defer to the code formatter. That way everything is consistent looking internally, which is all I care about. I couldn't care less whether the braces are on the same or a different line or other things like that outside of the fact that I do like internal consistency within projects.
All that aside, as soon as I saw the OP title I knew (via years of exposure to bikeshedding programmers) that this thread would end up having a ton of comments on it and wasn't surprised to see it was up to 500-something and still rapidly climbing.
So totally this. I despise indenting with tabs with a passion, but when I heard gofmt did that I was actually pleased. There's no arguing with the official formatting utility: https://golang.org/doc/effective_go.html#formatting
At the end of the day you can do whatever you want with the code you're writing, and some pre-commit hook can run go fmt/prettier/whatever and then it'll all get standardized.
I've become a very heavy proponent of code formatters (I added prettier to the entire team) and I truly believe that talk about code formatting will never really die off, but at the end of the day you can do whatever you want on your side but still have a standardized looking codebase, and that feels extremely liberating to me.
As a PS: If you are a diehard tab proponent/different bracket placement/whatever but your team formatter configuration uses spaces instead then you can also use code formatters to do spaces -> tabs locally, say, on file open. Once you commit your file your precommit falls back to the team configuration, which removes your tabs. Everyone is happy.
I should see if he remembers where he got it.
Same goes to spaces vs braces, editor wars, etc.
Downside: my projects are usually a bit of a mess with mixed indentation styles :D
How big once you remove all the extra newlines?
Thank god OC didn't mention "Just like you move from tabs to spaces."
To me, it looks weird when functions don't have that extra line of space to set off their definition, but if/while/whatever aren't special enough to need that call out.
That said, the most important factor is simple consistency. In my person projects, I have the hybrid style. At work, I use same-line-only. If I'm on a project that has next-line, we all use next-line.
int max(a, b)
double a, b;
{
return a > b ? a : b;
}When I write Python I end every block with a "pass" statement so that emacs can auto-indent my code properly. The "pass" statement thus effectively becomes a close-brace. It drives Pythonistas into conniptions, but I never have to worry about reverse-engineering a block of code to figure out how to restore the proper block boundaries after a cut-and-paste has screwed up the indentation.
If boundaries exist they need to be clear. One shouldn't have to count the tabs that make up the level of indentation.
Its already a challenge reading code. Counting invisible tabs makes it even worse.
def foo(bar)\
:
if (bar > 5)\
:
return bar + 1;
#
else\
:
return bar - 1;
#
#Similarly, copying code from StackOverflow, Github and random blogs have all worked without any issues.
So it can't be as easy as you imply.
Mixed spaces and tabs as a next go, and it worked too---converting the pasted tabs into spaces of my style.
Smart-tabbing is pretty smart.
Granted, I knew that so long as the indents were proper (i.e it compiles), that pasting at that point would give valid code but... I can't see how using braces would have been different. Just because it compiles, doesn't mean it works. I've pasted javascript incorrectly multiple time to produce valid, but incorrect for my needs code.
The indentation strategy also looks to produce syntactically valid code, so long as what you are pasting lacked indentation errors.
Unsurprisingly, PEP 8 does have a rule for tabs vs. spaces: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#tabs-or-spaces (spaces, of course)
Tabs are semantic and only take one key press for movement back and forth and to delete.
If you see 1 tab you know it meant one indentation level. With spaces you have to think.
Plus with spaces you are stuck with 2/4/8 spacing(unless you reformat), with tabs you can configure your editor to your preferences.
Configure 1 tab to be 4 spaces.
Sometimes it's easier to go with the flow. I like tabs for the reasons you mentioned, but fixed-width spaces are a bit better for some reasons too. IDE's can do the heavy lifting of re-formatting indentation levels and converting tabs to spaces for me, and it means if I cat a file on a remote server regardless of the bash tab width settings or if I'm in your code or the stdlib it will all make sense.
Except that you can't because people using tabs will invariably start mixing tabs and spaces because they can't separate indentation from layout. So the code will be messed up unless you configure your editor to someone else's preferences. Also, I'm sure there is some obscure git setting to de-uglify tab users' diffs, but I'd rather not find out.
Before you say that I'm crazy... please, go and read pep8.
OK. What am I looking for?
But tabs vs. spaces is indeed a bad analogy, because of course it's 4 spaces. ;-P
pycodestyle, the Python style checker, has a few checks disabled by default (because there's no consensus they're good ideas), and even some mutually exclusive ones:
https://pycodestyle.readthedocs.io/en/latest/intro.html#erro...
The correct answer is whatever the project is already using, unless it is new and then you luckily get to choose.
Tabs vs. Spaces has a fairly good answer that flows out of this way of looking at things. There is a counter-argument to that answer, but it is invalidated if you move toward conventions for argument lists and chained method calls that are also designed to limit noise in the source control system.
IMO, the argument about bracing also has a practical, non-religious answer once you start looking at your coding conventions this way.
>>> from __future__ import braces
SyntaxError: not a chancePS: he coded at Hercules the graphic cards back in the day before he got into teaching.
It's only people who cut their teeth on adjacent bracing that find it more readable.
I've seen both, and the reduction in vertical whitespace matters more to me than the readability to an untrained individual.
You seem to be erroneously equating a coincidence with a preference.
You should have a pretty cool family!
The advent of automatic code formatting (and Python pioneered this in many ways with pep8, but even huge C++ projects are realizing the value in clang-format, clazy, etc) put the nail in the coffin of arguments against whitespace blocking. You can have an enforced uniform style throughout a project now, with no ambiguity, and in such contexts using whitespace as a block delimiter also has no ambiguity. It just takes advantage of formatting already being done to avoid redundant glyph use.
Yup, Python clearly pioneered automatic code formatting. Nobody had done it before them...
That document states Bill Gosper wrote one of the first pretty printers, but doesn’t give a date for it.
I would think it is much older, as writing a simple lisp pretty-printer is easy and reading lisp without autoformatting is “less than ideal”.
In what way are context-free languages "a grammatically bloated mess?" Whitespace delimited languages like Python have context-sensitive grammars. Now that is a mess.
Dismissing the whole field of formal language theory with that statement is so bogus, it "is not even wrong." There are tools and techniques for parsing context-free languages that are impossible with context-sensitive languages. Parser generators, structured editing, metacompilers, composable grammars; those are all impossible with context-sensitive languages. Context-free languages are faster to parse, easier to write compilers/interpreters for, and much easier to write tooling for (editors, linters, etc).
Ambiguous context-free grammars are a very different thing from context-sensitive grammars. You can't point to the former and say "so whitespace sensitivity is ok."
I can point to ambiguous context-free grammars and say whitespace sensitivity is ok, because the tools to fix the one are often the same to fix the other. (Ambiguous context-free grammars do turn out to make context sensitive languages, because it's a blurry line in the grass between them.)
Whitespace sensitivity is one of the easier context sensitivity challenges to embed as a sub-language in an otherwise (mostly) context-free language, because you can represent it entirely as pseudo tokens from a simply modified lexing phase in a traditional CFG parser. Python is an easy and clear proof, as that is exactly what it did (Python is also not purely a CFG after whitespace tokenization because of also how it handles the dangling else, but we've already mentioned those weeds).
Even if you don't find the boundaries between the classes of languages fuzzy (and Parser Combinators and PEG grammars have a lot to say here), context-sensitive languages are a tool in a growing toolbelt, not a "complex" evil to be demonized.
Algorithmic complexity is not "moral superiority." The whole point of formal language theory is to show how the different languages differ in terms of how difficult they are to work with.
> just as they use regular expressions for tokenizing and allow regular language sub-languages
That is because regular languages are a subset of context-free languages. There is nothing special to "allow" there.
> I can point to ambiguous context-free grammars and say whitespace sensitivity is ok, because the tools to fix the one are often the same to fix the other.
No they are not. Precedence rules and extra lookahead will help with ambiguous context-free grammars but not with context-sensitive ones. There is also a whole class of algorithms, such as GLR, specialized to handle ambiguous CFGs efficiently.
> Whitespace sensitivity is one of the easier context sensitivity challenges to embed as a sub-language in an otherwise (mostly) context-free language, because you can represent it entirely as pseudo tokens from a simply modified lexing phase in a traditional CFG parser.
That statement is nonsense. There is no way to "embed" a context-sensitive language in a CFG. What you are saying is that it is "easy" to make a whole context-sensitive parser just to produce a context-free language so you can pass that to another CFG parser. That is not "easy," that is bolting crap onto other crap.
Chomsky's hierarchy was designed for production from categories of languages. That it doubles as a useful rule of thumb for algorithmic complexity in parsing is a fascinating dualism in mathematics. That those same rules of thumb reflect basic automaton abstractions is even more fascinating. This is also where it seems the clearest analogy lies to why I find your arguments to "complexity" so useless. It sounds to me like a strange steampunk form of the "640k is all anyone will ever need" fallacy: "why use Turing machines when Pushdown automatons will do just fine?"
Yes, there are a lot of great tools for working with CFGs, just as we've pushed Regular Expressions far past the boundaries of formal Regular Languages, we push these same tools past the boundaries of formal CFGs. We aren't actually constrained by the limits of only using Deterministic Finite Automata or Pushdown Automata in our programming, we have vast Church-Turing–level state machines at our power completely and easily capable of tracking contexts/states.
The "context" in a whitespace-sensitive language is "how many spaces have you seen recently?". This is not a hard question, this is not some mystical "context sensitivity" that needs an entire "context-sensitive language parser". It's a handful of counters. That is the very definition of easy, that's the built-in basics of your average Church-Turing machine, keep a number on the tape and update it as necessary.
Python's specification for the language defines the language in a CFG BNF just as the majority of brackets languages. The one concession to its whitespace sensitivity is that it expects from its lexer INDENT and DEDENT tokens. Those tokens are added simply by counting whitespace between lines, seeing if there is a < or > relationship. After those tokens are in the stream (along with the rest of the tokens defined in their associated (Mostly) Regular Languages) it is parsed by whatever CFG automaton/algorithm the Python team wants (LR, GLR, LALR, PEG, etc). That's not "bolting crap onto other crap" by most stretches of the imagination, that's using a pretty simple stack of tools that any programmer should be able to (re-)build, and not one at all more complicated than (and in fact built entirely inside) the classic tokenizer/lexer feeding a parser stack.
Honestly, from everything you have posted so far, I really get the impression that you have never worked on programming language parsing, or with large code bases. The difference in algorithmic complexity is not "useless," it is the difference between being able to compile millions of lines of code in a few seconds on modest hardware, and needing a cluster just to get your builds done:
https://community.embarcadero.com/blogs/entry/compiling-a-mi...
If we want to fight anecdote for anecdote, I've certainly seen millions of lines of code of Python analyzed ("compiled") in seconds on modest hardware, rather than a cluster. Differences there are more in the static typing versus dynamic typing, and strongly compiled versus weakly compiled/primarily interpreted there. Maybe a better anecdote is millions of lines of Haskell? Seen that too. Whitespace-sensitive languages scale just fine.
I can understand it if you want to admit that you just don't like whitespace-sensitive languages for personal reasons, but there aren't very good technical reasons and you seem unhappy with my explanations of why that is the case. I'm not sure how much more I can try to explain it, and given you seem close to resorting to personal attacks I'm afraid this is likely where the conversation ends.
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/9954...
The name tells you that it won.
To say it is religion isn't to say "your preference is dumb". In my own code preferences I try to maintain a split between "have a reason I have confidence in" and "personal preference". And "easier to read" is almost always in the latter. (If you can say WHY, that is the actual reason, but your actual reason still has to be provable.)
Given the difficulty of finding good research and the inherent difficulty of the research (if familiarity is a big component to preference, and a proven ability to mentally parse code required to judge, then good luck running a control group) I have a lot of items I have confidence in being provable without having actual proof, but the lengthy preference list also means I'm willing to accept that each of those can switch columns.
Way too many of our "easier to read" defenses are really "it is easier to read because I'm familiar with it. I personally think camelCase is terrible - language has spaces for reasons! - but there is no denying that it is very common and that the vast majority of coders learned it first, an unfortunate self perpetuating cycle.
Nonetheless, shown research that said I was wrong (assuming said research had taken familiarity into account) I would change my stance rather than dig in my heels...even if that change were to only add "but that's just me" to the end of it.
A later comment on the SO post described how K&R can have maintenance costs because when moving things around it's more difficult to tell where a statement ends, and can accidentally cause side effects.
The only thing being considered was "bugs in the final code", not "time and effort in maintenance."
As everyone else seems to use K&R I've just had a adapt over time :-(
There are lots of sane ways to read code, but consistency is key. It's hard to change muscle memory in how I type, though, so I think auto format is the way to go.
I like One True Brace Style (1TBS) with an uncuddled 'else', which has else/else if on new-line with the break before it (similar to Stroustrup K&R without any same line properties, one thing per line, no bracket-less statements) and setup the standard that way if I am designing it, but do Allman or whatever variant the codebase uses if it already exists.
void foo() {
code...;
}
void foo()
{
code...;
} stuffstuffstuff....
stuffstuffstuff...
if (...) {
while(...) {
do(...) {
if (...)
{
while(...) {
{
do(...) {
void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3) {
if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3) {
// do stuff
}
}
void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3)
{
if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3)
{
// do stuff
}
} void MyLongMethodName(SomeLongParamType param1, SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3) {
if (longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3) {
// do stuff
}
} void MyLongMethodName(
SomeLongParamType param1,
SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3
) {
if (
longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2 &&
longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3
) {
// do stuff
}
}
void MyLongMethodName(
SomeLongParamType param1,
SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3
) {
auto condition1 = longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2;
auto condition2 = longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3;
if (condition1 && condition2) {
// do stuff
}
}
void MyLongMethodName(
SomeLongParamType param1,
SomeOtherLongParamType param2,
YetAnotherLongParamType param3
) {
auto condition1 = longContrivedVariableName1 == longContrivedVariableName2;
auto condition2 = longContrivedVariableName1 != longContrivedVariableName3;
if (condition1 && condition2) {
// do stuff
}
auto someData = buildSomeData();
doSomethingWith(someData);
while (someCondition) {
// loop
}
finishUp();
return someData;
}Allman is great for this. Though I'm a Whitesmiths guy, myself. Still, same idea.
/36 years of commercial coding here.
Even with 80x24 (don't ask), I fully agree with Allman style braces.