Re: SMSQ/E Source Reading
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:51 pm
Hi Marcel,
I disagree on it being hard to read. I agree, it doesn't read like a good book, or perhaps, some higher level languages, but in the main, I find it "not too bad" to read. Having said that, I get annoyed/confused/whatever with the use of really short labels what are pretty much like something out of the Armed Forces! I like to use meaningful names myself - ok, mostly - but I seem to remember TT likes the really short stuff. (As an example of what I find hard about his code.)
Anyway, as I said in my original post, it's probably me that's at fault.
EDIT: Yup, I just had a quick look in SMSQ 3.34 and it is the short names that wind me up about reading Tony's code. Told you it was me!
Cheers,
Norm.
I disagree on it being hard to read. I agree, it doesn't read like a good book, or perhaps, some higher level languages, but in the main, I find it "not too bad" to read. Having said that, I get annoyed/confused/whatever with the use of really short labels what are pretty much like something out of the Armed Forces! I like to use meaningful names myself - ok, mostly - but I seem to remember TT likes the really short stuff. (As an example of what I find hard about his code.)
Anyway, as I said in my original post, it's probably me that's at fault.
EDIT: Yup, I just had a quick look in SMSQ 3.34 and it is the short names that wind me up about reading Tony's code. Told you it was me!
Cheers,
Norm.