J/HouseStyle: Difference between revisions
m (→goals: formatting) |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
== style guidelines == |
== style guidelines == |
||
Most of the J code presented in the RC J examples are considered good form - to J programmers. The main issue is that programmers familiar with other languages tend to expect an algorithm statement to have explicit iteration, and perhaps consume several lines of code. What is "good form" to a J programmer isn't necessarily easily readable to programmers familiar with scalar languages. |
|||
I agree with Donal Fellows in his comments |
|||
http://rosettacode.org/wiki/User_talk:Dkf#Your_discussion_about_J |
|||
in that more detailed comments and algorithm explanations are required for every code example in the RC forum, since the whole point is to help readers unfamiliar with that specific language understand what is going on in the code. The more unconventional a language is, the more explanation required. Hence, J examples in RC should display good coding practices (for J) in the example, but that code example should also be accompanied with thorough explanations and comments, all of which should be more thorough than if the audience was just J programmers. For that matter, this advice should be applied for all RC code examples. Teledon 8:47am 13 October 2009 |
|||
Revision as of 13:53, 13 October 2009
This page is a sandbox for discussing the goals of the J community on RC, and to develop guidelines and standards for J code to help achieve those goals. The result will be a J house style.
goals
- increase the usage of J by:
- increasing its exposure (coverage of tasks)
- showcasing its strengths (terseness, clarity of solutions)
- making examples accessible to newbies (e.g. judicious naming of code segments)
- provide resource of "good" example J code to J learners
- provide a Rosetta stone for explicit and tacit forms of J
style guidelines
Most of the J code presented in the RC J examples are considered good form - to J programmers. The main issue is that programmers familiar with other languages tend to expect an algorithm statement to have explicit iteration, and perhaps consume several lines of code. What is "good form" to a J programmer isn't necessarily easily readable to programmers familiar with scalar languages.
I agree with Donal Fellows in his comments http://rosettacode.org/wiki/User_talk:Dkf#Your_discussion_about_J in that more detailed comments and algorithm explanations are required for every code example in the RC forum, since the whole point is to help readers unfamiliar with that specific language understand what is going on in the code. The more unconventional a language is, the more explanation required. Hence, J examples in RC should display good coding practices (for J) in the example, but that code example should also be accompanied with thorough explanations and comments, all of which should be more thorough than if the audience was just J programmers. For that matter, this advice should be applied for all RC code examples. Teledon 8:47am 13 October 2009