Talk:Solve the no connection puzzle: Difference between revisions

 

::: The whole point of my indentation is to indent (offset) the code to ''not'' continue the visual alignment with the code before and after the (greatly) indented code (that is, to make it very distinctive from the "mainline" code).   Another alternative would be to write a subroutine for the indented code (which has its own drawbacks).   The indentation of the DO loops is itself an indication of what it is, a block of code using a DO loop construct (and in this case, with another DO loop within it, also greatly indented).   Some programmers don't indent the DO statement at all; that isn't my style of coding.   I prefer to use indentation instead of relying on the DO and END statements standing on their own --- to me, the indentation (in this case, great indentations) serve that purpose better.   It's all very subjective, of course, and I tried to keep the reader of unfamiliar code forefront in mind.   I'm a firm believer in matching (perfectly aligned) indented code (as opposed to Egyptian indentations).   Matching/aligned indented code (which is evident in the programs that I code) makes it easier for persons unfamiliar with the code to peruse the program logic.   Using (matching/aligned) indented code helps the reader to bypass (eyeballing) that section of code on re-examinations of the program, making it easier to "jump or skip over" the DO loop construct on subsequent re-readings.   The idea/concept of (program logic) indentation is a very volatile and can be an argumentative subject.   Any discussion on program code indentations (akin to a religious or political debate, editor wars come to mind) can be very confrontational when being discussed or its use validated. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)