Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
type declaration characters
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 |
#2
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
type declaration characters
I'm tempted just to write "de gustibus non disputandum est", since
there's little difference between the methods as long as formal programming practices are used. For my money, though, pseudo-Hungarian type variable names are easier to work with, as the 1-3 letter prefixes are not only easier to remember than type codes, but I can use prefixes for objects where type declaration characters don't work: Dim rOne As Range or Dim fntOne As Font If one explicitly types each variable, the result is no "weaker" (to use your phrase) than using type declaration characters. Since I require (using Option Explicit) variables to be declared before use in order to prevent inadvertent typos from declaring new variables, I would declare them in a Dim statement anyway. I don't see a great advantage to Dim MyString$ over Dim sMyString As String and, since type declaration characters don't have to be used in subsequent code, I see a real advantage in using prefixes. In: Dim v1$ Dim v2# v2 = 4 ... v1 = v2 the error is far less apparent to me than Dim sV1 As String Dim dV2 As Double dV2 = 4 ... sV1 = dV2 And for something completely trivial, I find it difficult to take seriously a system that would declare an Integer as a Percentage: Dim i% 'Integer!?! In article , 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. |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
type declaration characters
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 |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
how do you type squares or "to the power" in excel?? | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Select rows and sort based on type | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
vlookup argument type | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
multiple results display after filter function | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
help please - trouble with sumproduct function | Excel Worksheet Functions |