SQLServerCentral Editorial

Coding More Carefully

,

When I wrote computer code in school, programming as we kids called it, I could literally watch my programs compile on the screen. Working on a Radio Shack TRS-80 in PASCAL, we would see the lines of code scroll by, 3 or 4 a second, as they compiled into executable code. When that is the speed of the computer building your work, you learn very quickly to proofread your code from syntax or logic errors. A simple semicolon on the wrong place can result in quite a bit of lost time.

At some point we transitioned to Turbo Pascal, which compiled hundreds of lines in a split second, on par with the speed of today's compilers, which are often working through thousands of lines of code. Is that a good thing, however? Has this speed improvement ended up building poor habits in developers?

I ran across this post on the times when the author had one compile a day. That's slower than I had, but we did have time limits on the computer, as well as printer limits, when I was in college. The compile/fix a syntax error/recompile/test cycle  that we have now wasn't an option. Making too many simple mistakes would result in missed assignments.

Limiting developers to one compile a day wouldn't work these days, but I wonder if limiting the number of compiles might result in developers spending a little more time thinking about their code, their logic, and writing applications with a little more care? 

Or would they follow the same process they follow now, only slower?

Steve Jones


The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

Everyday Jones

The podcast feeds are available at sqlservercentral.mevio.com. Comments are definitely appreciated and wanted, and you can get feeds from there. Overall RSS Feed: or now on iTunes!

Today's podcast features music by Everyday Jones. No relation, but I stumbled on to them and really like the music. Support this great duo at www.everydayjones.com.

You can also follow Steve Jones on Twitter:

Rate

You rated this post out of 5. Change rating

Share

Share

Rate

You rated this post out of 5. Change rating