A suggestion for the ease of use of the MetaEditor - page 4

[Rashid Umarov]

Alexey Volchanskiy:
And when looking at large projects in fast mode, competent formatting is important.

ZZZY: I don't rule out that one of the reasons for MQ's slowness in development is that the prog team is hardwired to an uncomfortable codestyle.

ZZZY: I'm sure there have been psychological studies on which codestyle is perceived most quickly and comfortably. Maybe someone has the data?

Give us your own example of formatting, so as not to be unsubstantiated. So, if you give lip service to "beating MS and MQ put together", you'll be doing mythmaking as well.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Alexey Volchanskiy:

If there was a K&R style in there, I'd have been lying in a loonie in a baby bib a long time ago ))

You keep repeating Kernighan and Ritch's style so many times, I have to correct you. You're confused because you're relying on an old memory.

It's not even close to K&R (which is essentially a method of saving symbolism from the 1970s), but instead a deployed structural approach. The stylist's main job is to deploy the dumpster and build a perceived structure.

You can be picky about the style, but we have a styling tool to dramatically improve code quality and readability. Unfortunately, those who are "one-person writers, not [code] readers" cannot be persuaded anyway.

We are making major changes to the editor now and will soon be releasing some of the styler settings. This will allow for more flexible design management.

[Alexey Volchanskiy]

Artyom Trishkin:

No bigotry please, no bigotry :)

Artem , tell him that only American housewives use the Explorer ))))

[Alexey Volchanskiy]

Renat Fatkhullin:

You keep repeating Kernighan and Ritch's style so many times, I have to correct you. You're confused because you're relying on an old memory.

It's not even close to K&R (which is essentially a method of saving symbolism from the 1970s), but rather an extended structural approach.

You can be picky about style, but our styler can dramatically improve code quality and readability. Unfortunately, those who are "one-person writers, not readers" cannot be changed anyway.

Renat, I understand that this is an argument about blondes and brunettes )). But why not give the user a choice?

[Artyom Trishkin]

Alexey Volchanskiy:

Artem, tell him that only American housewives use the Explorer)))

Why? Well, if you like it, it's up to the man. But to impose - not promising it seems to me. But Renat said that this is exactly what I said:

a styler to dramatically increase the quality of the code and improve readability. Unfortunately, those who are "one-person writers, not [code] readers" cannot be persuaded anyway.

We are now making major changes to the editor, and in a little while we will move some of the styling settings outward. This will allow you to manage the design more flexibly.

The right thing to do is to stop these useless arguments. On the plus side, it's user-friendly.

[Alexey Viktorov]

Rashid Umarov:

In fact, if you use the standard MQ style for a while, you find that it is logical and teaches proper algorithm formation.

But all people for the most part do not want to change their habits - what they have been used to for years - and reject what they are not used to.They are always willing to call it ugly or inconvenient, simply because it is unaccustomed to them.

Try writing programs in Python and tell us your impressions )

Rashid, why do you put spaces after every word and comma after each comma in your post, while in your code the styler removes all the spaces? If it's more logical and readable without spaces, why don't you put no spaces in the text?

Personally, I can get used to everything but no spaces. Well, code becomes unreadable as well as the text of any message. It's hard to find all comparisons <>+-= and other...

[Alexey Volchanskiy]

Renat Fatkhullin:

You keep repeating Kernighan and Ritch's style so many times, I have to correct you. You're confused because you're relying on an old memory.

It's not even close to K&R (which is essentially a method of saving symbolism from the 1970s), but rather a deployed structural approach. The stylist's main job is to deploy the dumpster and build a perceived structure.

You can be picky about the style, but we have a styling tool to dramatically improve code quality and readability. Unfortunately, you cannot change the minds of those who are "one-person writers and not readers [of code]" anyway.

We're making big changes to the editor right now, and in a little while we'll put some of the styler settings out there. This will allow you to manage the design more flexibly.

You've added to your post, so I'll answer. I'm not picking on you, I'm talking about ergonomics. I'm a big code reader, but I'll reformat all your SB immediately through VS, purely for speed of perception. Because I actively use it without help, it's easier for me to look in the code.

Once again, I'm not a trolling-critic, you do a lot, and do it on 5+, but some things I'd like to tweak.

[Alexey Volchanskiy]

Alexey Viktorov:

Rashid, why do you put spaces after each word and after each comma in the text of the message, while the styler in the code removes all the spaces? If it's more logical and readable without spaces, why don't you put no spaces in the body of the message?

Personally, I can get used to everything but no spaces. Well, code becomes unreadable as well as the text of any message. It's hard to find all comparisons <>+-= and so on...

Ah-ah-ah-!!!!!!!!!!! I'm under the table!!!!!!!!!

void OnDeinit(const int reason)
{LastDeinitReason=reason;if(SentOrdersFile>0){FileClose(SentOrdersFile);SentOrdersFile=-1;}}

right? ))

they saved a lot of screen space!

[TheXpert]

Rashid Umarov:

I've looked at an example of your formatting apparently, give me a link. And an explanation of what makes it so good, please.

I use Olman's style.

void f()
{
   // some code
   if (condition)
   {
      // some code
   }
}

Or at least K&R.

void f() {
   // some code
   if (condition) {
      // some code
   }
}

These two styles are by a huge margin over the others. Both have clearly readable code nesting. You can see where the block belongs, no formatting problems.

Your style is under-GNU, the disadvantages I've voiced above. GNU at least has the same indentation from the curly and to the curly.

[Alexey Volchanskiy]

Комбинатор:

I use Olman's style.

or at least K&R.

These two styles by a huge margin over the others. Both have clearly readable code nesting. You can see where the block belongs, no formatting problem.

Your style is under-GNU, the shortcomings I've voiced above. GNU at least has the same indentation from the curly and to the curly.

Olman's is the best!