Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 5 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Jeff finished his post talking about this, but I don't catch the idea.
So, why do you think this is a bad coding style?
EDIT:
I, as a lot of you, don't think that it is a bad coding style. But Jeff is far better programmer than me, and his point of view turned on lights on my head to get answering if I was wrong. I was a Delphi developer for some few years and am becoming a C# developer now, and in Delphi it was a common practice.
All caps is the traditional C designation of a preprocessor macro constant. It's very useful to have these in a different namespace from anything else, since the preprocessor will substitute wherever it finds the name, regardless of things like scope.
A constant in the sense that Jeff was using is, semantically, a variable that can't be changed. It obeys all scoping principles and everything, and is semantically identical to a non-const variable with the same value.
To put this another way,
#define max_length 5
is a problem because somebody might use max_length as a variable in a different context, where it would normally be safe, while
const int max_length = 5;
is simply a variable declaration. Therefore, there's an advantage in using
#define MAX_LENGTH 5
because the convention is that only preprocessor constants are all-caps, so it will not interfere with any other use.
You'll find that a lot of Jeff's statements are controversial first, with accuracy being a secondary concern. His blog wouldn't be that popular if he weren't occasionally inflammatory. (Consider the last line of Death to the Space Infidels, "That said, only a moron would use tabs to format their code.") It's honestly subjective. Don't take everything he says as True and Good -- it's not meant to be. If you disagree, go kick his ass in the comments, and see if he writes back. :)
I think ALL_CAPS_CONSTANTS are perfect: they're instantly recognizable and familiar. Part of my workplace's style guidelines (and we don't have that many) is to write all static constants in caps. Don't sweat it; just use whatever the rest of your team uses. Deciding on StudlyCaps vs. camelCase vs SCREAMING_CAPS is worth maybe 90 seconds discussion.
Screaming is fine. In the case of the constant it tells the reader
DONT THINK ABOUT CHANGING ME LATER IN
CODE
But I understand if soft programmers get offended.
Frankly, I don't think it is bad coding style. Indeed, even the official Java code style makes constants all capitals (http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/html/CodeConventions.doc8.html), as do other language conventions.
In theory, it's harder to read - we humans like to use the variable height of letters to increase reading speed (we can infer a lot of information from just rough word shape and the first/last letters). However, I don't have a problem with short, all capital phrases. It's hardly "shouting" (you compiler doesn't exactly care how rude you are), and clearly shows the names are potentially mutable, and those that are not.
I don't think it's bad coding style. Maybe old-fashioned, but not bad. It does make constants stand out from other variables.
The only compelling reason to me is consistency in style. For non-.NET languages like Java / C++, all-caps constants are certainly acceptable.
For C#, the standard is to use PascalCase, as noted here: C# naming convention for constants?
ALL CAPS IS LIKE SHOUTING AT SOMEONE.
IT ALSO MAKES THE CODE HARDER TO READ
Jeff has some additional things to say on this in the comments:
However on the other side and the reason I do still use the all caps and
underscore
Less code? That's a worthwhile cause
deserving of serious discussion.
But whether you call something "foo",
"Foo", "_foo", or "FOO"? Meh.
Naming conventions are highly
controversial and religious.
Developers should pick something they
like, something that's hopefully not
too much at odds with the "local
conventions", and just go with it. A
lot of discussion and hand-wringing
over naming isn't worthwhile.
That said, I think ALL CAPS IS REALLY
HARD TO READ!
I also use this for constants, but I also can understand why some people don't like it. It's a bit like writing everything in lowercase in german or other languages.
Well, there's the old readability issue. Normally-cased test is just easier to read.
There are exceptions, though. Languages like SQL are usually all upper-case (although case-insensitive).
Also, there are other uses, like to distinguish between "constants" and regular variables, which you'll see in a lot of languages like PHP, Python, etc., even though Jeff for some reason doesn't like that, and it is apparently against the C# code style guidelines.
So generally, I don't think it's wrong anywhere, but I do think that one should always try and follow the general best practises. When in Rome, do as the Romans – when coding Python, follow PEP 8 :)
FLIP THE QUESTION, WHY USE ALL CAPS?
I don't think that it is wrong. Mostly, it's a personal choice.
For your personal coding, do what you want.
For you professional coding, follow company policy.
Just like writing everything in bold is not a good idea
I remapped my capslock to a ctrl key (woo emacs!). So I think its bad style when I have to type 30-character names while holding down shift
Some people consider ALL CAPS to be "old school". Consider the difference between:
const string ErrorMessage = "Some error message.";
and
const string ERROR_MESSAGE = "Some error message.";
Both are completely usable, but the ALL CAPS version is less used by newer developers, such as the ones that started out with .NET.
I consider it a bad coding style if your team is using a different style. Other than that, I don't really care. At least when I see ALL CAPS in some shared code, I can guess that it's a constant.
#ck,
BECAUSE IT'S CONVENTION.
I use ALL_CAPS for macros and preprocessor symbols. So my pre-C99 C constants are ALL_CAPS, but not in any other language I know of.
Constants and CONSTANTS might differ. Use all-caps only when dealing with preprocessor, that being said for example in C++ it's recommended to avoid that and use const variable or constexpr which would be named just like any other variables (maybe with some prefix or something to make it clear that it's a constant but...).
Related
FxCop thought me (basically, from memory) that functions, classes and properties should be written in MajorCamelCase, while private variables should be in minorCamelCase.
I was talking about a reasonably popular project on IRC and quoted some code. One other guy, a fairly notorious troll who was also a half-op (gasp!) didn't seem to agree. Everything oughta be in the same casing, and he quite fervently favored MajorCamelCase, or even underscore_separation.
Ofcourse, he was just a troll so I reckoned I'd just keep doing it the way I already did. Before I learned the above guidelines, I hardly even had a coherent naming style.
He got me thinking, though -- does stuff like this really matter?
You need to make sure that your code is readable in the future. Please remember that you might want to pass the development of your application to someone else and this person will need to read and understand it. You could stop actively working on a project and return to it after a year - and be suprised that you have to read code carefully to understand how it works.
I believe it was Steve McConnell who said that specific naming style does not really matter (you could use anything you want as long as you are consistent) but this only applies when everyone working on the project agree with you.
In general it is better to adopt community-accepted coding styles where possible to facilitate code reuse and shorten learning curves.
If you don't care about long-term maintanability of your project (or consistency or readability) then no, casing (and coding conventions in general) don't really matter. Otherwise, they do matter. See this.
Your specific coding style doesn't matter (much), so long as it is consistent throughout the project.
This improves readability and understanding, as if an identifier is named in a particular way, the reader can (hopefully) be confident as to what that naming style implies.
As regards CamelCase v underscores, etc: again, it's down to your coding convention. One approach which uses both is to apply a prefix with underscore to indicate the module in which the function, or file-scope/global variable, is used, e.g. Config_Update(), Status_Get().
Let's say you've inherited a C# codebase that uses one class with 200 static methods to provide core functionality (such as database lookups). Of the many nightmares in that class, there's copious use of Hungarian notation (the bad kind).
Would you refactor the variable names to remove the Hungarian notation, or would you leave them alone?
If you chose to change all the variables to remove Hungarian notation, what would be your method?
Refactor -- I find Hungarian notation on that scale really interferes with the natural readability of the code, and the exercise is a good way of getting familiar with what's there.
However, if there are other team members who know the code base you would need consensus on the refactoring, and if any of the variables are exposed outside of the one project then you will have to leave them alone.
Just leave it alone. There are better uses of your time.
Right click on the variable name, Refactor -> Rename.
There are VS add-ins that do this as well, but the built-in method works fine for me.
What would I do? Assuming that I just have to maintain the code and not rewrite it any significant way? Leave it well alone. And When I do add code, go with the existing style, meaning, use that ugly Hungarian notation (as dirty as that makes me feel.)
But, hey, if you really have a hankerin' fer refactorin' then just do a little at a time. Every time you work on it spend ten minutes renaming variables. Tidying things up a little. After a few months you might find it's clean as a whistle....
Don't forget that there are two kinds of Hungarian Notation.
The original Charles Simonyi HN, later known as App's Hungarian and the later abomination called System Hungarian after some peckerhead (it's a technical term) totally misread Simonyi's original paper.
Unfortunately, System HN was propagated by Petzold and others to become the more dominant abortion that it is rightfully recognised as today.
Read Joel's excellent article about the intent of the original Apps Hungarian Notation and be sorry for what got lost in the rush.
If what you've got is App's Hungarian you will probably want to keep it after reading both the original Charles Simonyi article and the Joel article.
If you've landed in a steaming pile of System Hungarian?
All bets are off!
Whew! (said while holding nose) (-:
if you're feeling lucky and just want the Hungarian to go away, isolate the Hungarian prefixes that are used and try a search and replace in file to replace them with nothing, then do a clean and rebuild. If the number of errors is small, just fix it. If the number of errors is huge, go back and break it up into logical (by domain) classes first, then rename individually (the IDE will help)
I used to use it religiously back in the VB6 days, but stopped when VB.NET came out because that's what the new VB guidelines said. Other developers didn't. So, we’ve got a lot of old code with it. When I do maintenance on code I remove the notation from the functions/methods/sub I touch. I wouldn't remove it all at once unless you've got really good unit tests for everything and can run them to prove that nothing's broken.
How much are you going to break by doing this? That's an important question to ask yourself. If there are a lot of other pieces of code that use that library, then you might just be creating work for folks (maybe you) by going through the renaming exercise.
I'd put it on the list of things to do when refactoring. At least then everyone expects you to be breaking the library (temporarily).
That said, I totally get frustrated with poorly named methods and variables, so I can relate.
I wouldn't make a project out of it. I'd use the refactoring tools in VS (actually, I'd use Resharper's, but VS's work just fine) and fix all the variables in any method I was called upon to modify. Or if I had to make larger-scale changes, I'd refactor the variable names in any method I was called upon to understand.
If you have a legitimate need to remove and change it I would use either the built in refactoring tools, or something like Resharper.
However, I would agree with Chris Conway to a certain standpoint and ask you WHY, yes, it is annoying, but at the same time, a lot of the time the "if it aint't broke done't fix it" method is really the best way to go!
Only change it when you directly use it. And make sure you have a testbench ready to apply to ensure it still works.
I agree that the best way to phase out hungarian notation is to refactor code as you modify it. The greatest benefit of doing this kind of refactoring is that you should be writing unit tests around the code you're modifying so that you have a safety net instead of crossing your fingers and hoping that you don't break existing functionality. Once you have these unit tests in place, you are free to change the code to your heart's content.
I'd say a bigger problem is that you have a single class with 200(!) methods!
If this is a much depended on / much changed class then it might be worth refactoring to make it more usable.
In this, Resharper is an absolute must (you could use the built in refactoring stuff, but Resharper is way better).
Start finding a group of related methods, and then refactor these out into a nice small cohesive class. Update to conform to your latest code standards.
Compile & run your test suite.
Have energy for more? Extract another class.
Worn out - no trouble; come back and do some more tomorrow. In just a few days you'll have conquered the beast.
I agree with #Booji -- do it manually, on a per-routine basis when you're already visiting the code for some other good reason. Then, you'll get the most common ones out of the way, and who cares about the rest.
I was thinking of asking a similar question, only in my case, the offending code is my own. I have a very old habit of using "the bad kind" of Hungarian from my FoxPro days (which had weak typing and unusual scoping) — a habit I've only recently kicked.
It's hard — it means accepting an inconsistent style in your code base. It was only a week ago I finally said "screw it" and began a parameter name without the letter "p". The cognitive dissonance I initially felt has given way to a feeling of liberty. The world did not come to an end.
The way I've been going about this problem is changing one variable at a time as I come across them, then perform more sweeping changes when you come back to do more in-depth changes. If you're anything like me, the different nomenclature of your variables will drive you bat-shiat crazy for a while, but you'll slowly become used to it. The key is to chip away at it a little bit at a time until you have everything to where it needs to be.
Alternatively, you could jettison your variables altogether and just have every function return 42.
It sounds to me like the bigger problem is that 200-method God Object class. I'd suggest that refactoring just to remove the Hungarian notation is a low-value, high-risk activity in of itself. Unless there's a copious set of automated unit tests around that class to give you some confidence in your refactoring, I think you should leave it well and truly alone.
I guess it's unlikely that such a set of tests exists, because a developer following TDD practices would (hopefully) have naturally avoided building a god object in the first place - it would be very difficult to write comprehensive tests for.
Eliminating the god object and getting a unit test base in place is of higher value, however. My advice would be to look for opportunities to refactor the class itself - perhaps when a suitable business requirement/change comes along that necessitates a change to that code (and thus hopefully comes with some system & regression testing bought and paid for). You might not be able to justify the effort of refactoring the whole thing in one go, but you can do it piece by piece as the opportunity comes along, and test-drive the changes. In this way you can slowly convert the spaghetti code into a cleaner code base with comprehensive unit tests, bit by bit.
And you can eliminate the Hungarian as you go, if you like.
I am actually doing the same thing here for an application extension. My approach has been to use VIM mappings to search for specific Hungarian notation prefixes and then delete them and fix capitalization as appropriate.
Examples (goes in vimrc):
"" Hungarian notation conversion helpers
"" get rid of str prefixes and fix caps e.g. strName -> name
map ,bs /\Wstr[A-Z]^Ml3x~
map ,bi /\Wint[A-Z]^Ml3x~
"" little more complex to clean up m_p type class variables
map ,bm /\Wm_p\?[A-Z]^M:.s/\(\W\)m_p\?/\1_/^M/\W_[A-Z]^Mll~
map ,bp /\Wp[A-Z]^Mlx~
If you're gonna break code just for the sake of refactoring, I would seriously consider leaving i alone, specially, if you are going to affect other people in your team who may be depending on that code.
If your team is OK with this refactoring, and investing your time in doing this (which may be a time-saver in the future, if it means the code is more readable/maintainable), use Visual Studio (or whatever IDE you are using) to help you refactor the code.
However, if a big change like this is not a risk your team/boss is willing to take, I would suggest a somewhat unorthodox, half-way approach. Instead of doing all your refactoring in a single sweep, why not refactor sections of code (more specifically, functions) that need to be touched during normal maintenance? Over time, this slow refactoring will bring the code up to a cleaner state, at which point you can finish the refactoring process with a final sweep.
Use this java tool to remove HN:
Or just use "replace"/"replace all" with regex like below to replace "c_strX" to "x":
I love Hungarian notation. Don't understand why you would want to get rid of it.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I've worked on a couple of projects where we spent a great deal of time discussing and writing elaborate coding standards covering everything from syntax layout to actual best practices. However, I have also found that these are rarely followed to the full extent. Many developers seem to hesitate to reject a code review based on coding standard violations alone. I.e. violations are committed to the repository on a regular basis.
My questions are: Do you have coding standards? What do they cover? Are they followed by everyone? And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standards?
I'm aware that there is a similar question here, but my concern is not so much how you could do it, but how you are actually going about it and what are the perceived benefits?
I've worked in places with barely-followed coding practices, and others where they're close to being enforced - or at least easily checked.
A few suggestions:
The most important thing is to get buy-in to the idea that consistency trumps your personal preferred style. There should be discussion of the coding standard both before and after it's instituted, but no-one should be allowed to just opt out of it.
Code reviews should be mandatory, with the checkin comment including the username of the reviewer. If you're using a suitably powerful SCM, consider not allowing checkins which don't have a valid reviewer name.
There should be a document which everyone knows about laying out the coding standards. With enough detail, you shouldn't get too much in the way of arguments.
Where possible, automate checking of the conventions (via Lint, CheckStyle, FXCop etc) so it's easy for both the committer and the reviewer to get a quick check of things like ordering import/using directives, whitespace etc.
The benefits are:
Primarily consistency - if you make it so that anyone can feel "at home" in any part of the codebase at any time, it gives you more flexibility.
Spreading best practice - if you ban public fields, mutable structs etc then no-one can accidentally plant a time bomb in your code. (At least, not a time bomb that's covered by the standard. There's no coding standard for perfect code, of course :)
EDIT: I should point out that coding standards are probably most important when working in large companies. I believe they help even in small companies, but there's probably less need of process around the standard at that point. It helps when all the developers know each other personally and are all co-located.
Do you have coding standards?
Yes, differs from project to project.
What does it cover?
Code(class, variable, method, constant), SQL naming and formatting convention
Is it being followed by everyone?
Yes, every new entrant in project could be asked to create a demo project following organization coding convention then it gets reviewed. This exercise makes developer feel at ease before starting real job.
And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
Use StyleCop and FxCop to ensure they are religiously followed. It would show up as warning/error if code fails to comply with organization coding convention.
Visual Studio Team system has nice code anlysis and check-In policies which would prevent developers checking in code that does not comply
Hope, it helps
Thanks,
Maulik Modi
We take use of the Eclipse's save actions and formatters. We do have a suggested standard, but nobody is actually enforcing it, so there are some variations on what is actually formatted, and how.
This is something of a nuisance (for me), as various whitespace variations are committed as updates to the SVN repository...
StyleCop does a good job of enforcing coding layout practices and you can write custom rules for it if something isn't covered in the base rules that is important to you.
I think coding standards are very important. There is nothing more frustrating than trying to find the differences between two revisions of a file only to find that the whole file has been changed by someone who reformatted it all. And I know someone is going to say that that sort of practice should be stamped out, but most IDEs have a 'reformat file' feature (Ctrl-K Ctrl-D in Visual Studio, for example), which makes keeping your code layed out nicely much easier.
I've seen projects fail through lack of coding standards - the curly-brace wars at my last company were contributary to a breakdown in the team.
I've found the best coding standards are not the standards made up by someone in the team. I implemented the standards created by iDesign (click here) in our team, which gets you away from any kind of resentment you might get if you try to implement your own 'standard'.
A quick mention of Code Style Enforcer (click here) which is pretty good for highlighting non-compliance in Visual Studio.
I have a combination of personal and company coding standards that are still evolving to some extent. They cover code structure, testing, and various documents describing various bits of functionality.
As it evolves, it is being adopted and interpreted by the rest of my team. Part of what will happen ultimately is that if there is concensus on some parts then those will hold up while other parts may just remain code that isn't necessarily going to be up to snuff.
I think there may be some respect or professional admiration that act as a way of getting people to follow the coding standards where some parts of it become clear after it is applied, e.g. refactoring a function to be more readable or adding tests to some form, with various "light bulb moments" to borrow a phrase from Oprah.
Another part of the benefit is to see how well do others work, what kinds of tips and techniques do they have and how can one improve over time to be a better developer.
I think the best way to look at coding standards is in terms of what you hope to achieve by applying, and the damage that they can cause if mis-applied. For example, I see the following as quite good;
Document and provide unit tests that illustrate all typical scenarios for usage of a given interface to a given routine or module.
Where possible use the following container classes libraries, etc...
Use asserts to validate incoming parameters and results returned (C & C++)
Minimise scope of all variables
Access object members through methods
Use new and delete over malloc and free
Use the prescribed naming conventions
I don't think that enforcing style beyond this is a great idea, as different programmers are efficient using differing styles. Forcing programmers to change style can be counter productive and lead to lost time and reduced quality. Standards should be kept short and easy to understand.
Oh yes, I'm the coding standard police :) I just wrote a simple script to periodically check and fix the code (my coding standard is simple enough to implement that.) I hope people will get the message after seeing all these "coding convention cleanups" messages :)
We have a kind of 'loose' standard. Maybe because of our inability to have agreement upon some of those 'how many spaces to put there and there', 'where to put my open brace, after the statement or on the next line'.
However, as we have main developers for each of the dedicated modules or components, and some additional developers that may work in those modules, we have the following main rule:
"Uphold the style used by the main developer"
So if he wants to do 3 space-indentation, do it yourself also.
It's not ideal as it might require retune your editor settings, but it keeps the peace :-)
Do you have coding standards?
What does it cover?
Yes, it has naming conventions, mandatory braces after if, while ... , no warning allowed, recommendations for 32/64 bits alignment, no magic number, header guards, variables initialization and formatting rules that favor consistency for legacy code.
Is it being followed by everyone?
And what do you do (if anything) to make sure everybody is following the standard?
Mostly, getting the team agreement and a somewhat lightweight coding standard (less than 20 rules) helped us here.
How it is being enforced ?
Softly, we do not have coding standard cop.
Application of the standard is checked at review time
We have template files that provide the standard boilerplate
I have never seen a project fail because of lack of coding standards (or adherence to them), or even have any effect on productivity. If you are spending any time on enforcing them then you are wasting money. There are so many important things to worry about instead (like code quality).
Create a set of suggested standards for those who prefer to have something to follow, but leave it at that.
JTest by ParaSoft is decent for Java.
Our coding standards are listed in our Programmer's Manual so everyone can easily refer to them. They are effective simply because we have buy in from all team members, because people are not afraid to raise standards and style issues during code reviews, and because they allow a certain level of flexibility. If one programmer creates a new file, and she prefers to place the bracket on the same line as an if statement, that sets the standard for that file. Anyone modifying that file in the future must use the same style to keep things consistent.
I'll admit, when I first read the coding standards, I didn't agree with some of them. For instance, we use a certain style for function declarations that looks like this:
static // Scope
void // Type declaration
func(
char al, //IN: Description of al
intl6u hash_table_size, //IN/OUT: Description of hash_table_size
int8u s) //OUT: Description of s
{
<local declarations>
<statements>
}
I had never seen that before, so it seemed strange and foreign to me at first. My gut reaction was, "Well, that's dumb." Now that I've been here a while, I have adjusted to the style and appreciate how I can quickly comprehend the function declaration because everyone does it this way.
I'm learning Ruby in my spare time, and I have a question about language constructs for constants. Does Ruby have an equivalent of the C++ const keyword to keep variables from being modified? Here's some example code:
first_line = f.gets().chomp()
column_count = first_line.split( %r{\s+} ).size()
print column_count, "\n"
I'd like to declare column_count to be const, because I use it below in my program and I really don't want to modify it by mistake. Does Ruby provide a language construct for doing this, or should I just suck it up and realize that my variables are always mutable?
Response to comments:
'The most likely cause of "accidental" overwriting of variables is, I'd guess, long blocks of code.' I agree with the spirit of your point, but disagree with the letter. Your point about avoiding long blocks of code and unnecessary state is a good one, but for constants can also be useful in describing the design of code inside of the implementation. A large part of the value of const in my code comes from annotating which variables I SHOULD change and which I shouldn't, so that I'm not tempted to change them if I come back to my code next year. This is the same sentiment that suggests that code that uses short comments because of good variable names and clear indentation is better than awkwardly written code explained by detailed comments.
Another option appears to be Ruby's #freeze method, which I like the look of as well. Thanks for the responses everyone.
Ruby variables in general are, well, variable.
Beyond Jeremy's answer, while entirely accurate, doesn't lead you to a Ruby style that's very "mainstream" or idiomatically sound and I wouldn't recommend it for adoption. Ruby doesn't work like C++ and generally isn't very appropriate for things that C++ is best used for. Operating systems, word processors, that kind of thing.
The most likely cause of "accidental" overwriting of variables is, I'd guess, long blocks of code. After all, if you change the value of a variable in a five-line method, it's going to be fairly apparent! If you're habitually writing blocks of code longer than, say, 10 lines, then those chunks are probably doing too many things and I strongly advise that you make efforts to break them up (increase cohesion). Localise variables as much as possible to minimise the chance of unexpected side-effects (reduce coupling).
By convention, constants in ruby are generally written in all caps such as COLUMN_COUNT. But as it was pointed out, all variables that start with a capital letter are Constants.
Variables that start with a capital letter are constants in Ruby. So you could change your code to this:
first_line = f.gets().chomp()
Column_count = first_line.split( %r{\s+} ).size()
print Column_count, "\n"
Now you'll get a warning if you try to modify Column_count.
I am writing a coding standards document for a team of about 15 developers with a project load of between 10 and 15 projects a year. Amongst other sections (which I may post here as I get to them) I am writing a section on code formatting. So to start with, I think it is wise that, for whatever reason, we establish some basic, consistent code formatting/naming standards.
I've looked at roughly 10 projects written over the last 3 years from this team and I'm, obviously, finding a pretty wide range of styles. Contractors come in and out and at times, and sometimes even double the team size.
I am looking for a few suggestions for code formatting and naming standards that have really paid off ... but that can also really be justified. I think consistency and shared-patterns go a long way to making the code more maintainable ... but, are there other things I ought to consider when defining said standards?
How do you lineup parenthesis? Do you follow the same parenthesis guidelines when dealing with classes, methods, try catch blocks, switch statements, if else blocks, etc.
Do you line up fields on a column? Do you notate/prefix private variables with an underscore? Do you follow any naming conventions to make it easier to find particulars in a file? How do you order the members of your class?
What about suggestions for namespaces, packaging or source code folder/organization standards? I tend to start with something like:
<com|org|...>.<company>.<app>.<layer>.<function>.ClassName
I'm curious to see if there are other, more accepted, practices than what I am accustomed to -- before I venture off dictating these standards. Links to standards already published online would be great too -- even though I've done a bit of that already.
First find a automated code-formatter that works with your language. Reason: Whatever the document says, people will inevitably break the rules. It's much easier to run code through a formatter than to nit-pick in a code review.
If you're using a language with an existing standard (e.g. Java, C#), it's easiest to use it, or at least start with it as a first draft. Sun put a lot of thought into their formatting rules; you might as well take advantage of it.
In any case, remember that much research has shown that varying things like brace position and whitespace use has no measurable effect on productivity or understandability or prevalence of bugs. Just having any standard is the key.
Coming from the automotive industry, here's a few style standards used for concrete reasons:
Always used braces in control structures, and place them on separate lines. This eliminates problems with people adding code and including it or not including it mistakenly inside a control structure.
if(...)
{
}
All switches/selects have a default case. The default case logs an error if it's not a valid path.
For the same reason as above, any if...elseif... control structures MUST end with a default else that also logs an error if it's not a valid path. A single if statement does not require this.
In the occasional case where a loop or control structure is intentionally empty, a semicolon is always placed within to indicate that this is intentional.
while(stillwaiting())
{
;
}
Naming standards have very different styles for typedefs, defined constants, module global variables, etc. Variable names include type. You can look at the name and have a good idea of what module it pertains to, its scope, and type. This makes it easy to detect errors related to types, etc.
There are others, but these are the top off my head.
-Adam
I'm going to second Jason's suggestion.
I just completed a standards document for a team of 10-12 that work mostly in perl. The document says to use "perltidy-like indentation for complex data structures." We also provided everyone with example perltidy settings that would clean up their code to meet this standard. It was very clear and very much industry-standard for the language so we had great buyoff on it by the team.
When setting out to write this document, I asked around for some examples of great code in our repository and googled a bit to find other standards documents that smarter architects than I to construct a template. It was tough being concise and pragmatic without crossing into micro-manager territory but very much worth it; having any standard is indeed key.
Hope it works out!
It obviously varies depending on languages and technologies. By the look of your example name space I am going to guess java, in which case http://java.sun.com/docs/codeconv/ is a really good place to start. You might also want to look at something like maven's standard directory structure which will make all your projects look similar.