LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,247
Default type declaration characters

Perhaps they are not popular because the people who've been
doing programming
a while realize the value of Option Explicit.


There is absolutely NO reason not to use Option Explicit. I would
be wary of any code that did not require variable declarations.
The probability of misspelled variables names (resulting in a
new, empty variable) is simply too high. Any professional,
commercial-quality code must use Option Explicit.

The same holds of Option Compare Text/Binary. Take your pick
which one to use, but use one of them.

--
Cordially,
Chip Pearson
Microsoft MVP - Excel
Pearson Software Consulting, LLC
www.cpearson.com



"JLatham" wrote in message
...
Perhaps they are not popular because the people who've been
doing programming
a while realize the value of Option Explicit. Essentially
Option Explicit
forces the use of Dim - and that combination prevents you from
may logic
errors that can creep in because of misspelled, unintentional
on-the-fly
variable definitions.

Of course, I guess we could go all the way back to the
beginning days of
BASIC and restrict variable/constant name lengths to 2
characters plus the
declaration character?

Option Explicit (with the requisite Dim) is more professional,
so using it
will make you LOOK more professional.

"integreat" wrote:


Visual basic still supports them such as

variableName!
variableName#

and so on

so why are they not popular?. For instance I detest the custom
naming
conventions for variables like this:

Dim strMyString as string
strMyString = "hello world"

why not just do this

myString$ = "hello world"

basically visual basic has allowed weak programming to creep
into the
language!

Further Quick basic supports this

myString$ = space$(1000) (could be a little out in that
syntax)

I don't know if vbasic supports the "space$" keyword
the above code gives the string a definite size. It is not a
dynamic
string. I hate dynamic strings. GWbasic had dynamic strings
and they
stunk.

Now the basic argument is that vbasic ran out of type
declaration
characters as there were more variable types. I don't buy that
though.
All vbasic had to do was make some extra custom type
declaration chars
and the problem would have been solved. The code would look
alot nicer
and neater and the DIM statement would not have to be used to
declare
variables at all!!!!

This might agravate some Microsoft employees who like to brag
on how
many pages of code they did in one day. With this new idea all
unecessary code could be eliminated . It would reduce the code
by about
20 percent.


--
integreat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
integreat's Profile:
http://www.excelforum.com/member.php...o&userid=34282
View this thread:
http://www.excelforum.com/showthread...hreadid=562187




 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how do you type squares or "to the power" in excel?? Hyperyoda Excel Discussion (Misc queries) 4 December 3rd 05 09:57 PM
Select rows and sort based on type Sarah Excel Discussion (Misc queries) 0 October 11th 05 05:06 PM
vlookup argument type tbennett Excel Worksheet Functions 3 September 3rd 05 12:42 AM
multiple results display after filter function Morphyus C via OfficeKB.com Excel Worksheet Functions 1 August 11th 05 03:17 PM
help please - trouble with sumproduct function Jennie Excel Worksheet Functions 2 June 17th 05 09:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 ExcelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Microsoft Excel"