SynthModules

I'm not sure this represents a 'yay' or a 'nay' :)

Problems with standards: one man's meat is another man's poison (or 
as said by an extremely talented singer-songwriter who is nonetheless 
unknown: "One man's verse is another man's prose").  What is 
descriptive to some might not be for others.

ALL CAPS is historical I think (MBASIC anyone? Further back?)

Since I agree with the basic premise, I've coded my stuff to conform 
to what came before me (my consultant background showing).  That way, 
it's at least uniform.

One thing I do strongly agree with is the labelling of global 
variables.  However, in this language EVERY variable is global :( 
What I've done is to indicate where a variable is tweaked elsewhere 
(as in a GOSUB) within the comments.

Mike

--- In SynthModules@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew Scheidler" 
<xpandrew@p...> wrote:
> Conform...  conform!
> 
> I agree 100% on having some standards.  I think it's in all our best
> interests if we're serious about sharing and building a useful 
library
> of programs.
> 
> How about a 5 member program review board.  The individual board 
members
> would examine programs as they are submitted, then they would 
conviene
> on a bi-weekly basis to debate the usefulness, coding and overall 
beauty
> of the programs (intresting LED effects would be given special
> consideration!).  Each program would then be voted on, and those 
that
> receive a majority of board member votes would be posted on the 
Yahoo
> site.  Board member terms would be for 1 year, and elections would 
be
> held on the second Tuesday of July.  PSIM owners would vote by 
recording
> a 56k MP3 of their SpeakJet chip reading the names of the board 
members
> they are voting for.
> 
> Ha ha ha ha.  
> OK, no more Mountain Dew this morning =)
> 
> Andrew
> 
> >>> jmahoney@g... 05/13/04 9:57 AM >>>
> Brice had written:
> > One of these days... I'll take *all* the code offline and fix it 
all
> then
> > re-upload it.
> 
> While I'm going to make some comments below, I'd like you all to
> consider
> this as sort of an opinion poll. Your answers will probably fall 
into 2
> categories: "It ain't broke, don't fix it" and "Yeah, maybe we 
should do
> [something]."
> 
> Before I get started, let me once again say a hearty "Thank you!" to
> those
> trailblazers who have hacked a path through the jungle and -- to mix
> metaphors -- laid a foundation on which we can all build. The 
following
> is
> meant to be constructive, from the viewpoint of someone looking with
> hindsight at the previous work.
> 
> 
> One of the things that strikes me when I review the existing 
programs
> (besides how cool and easy to program the PSIM is) is the variable
> naming.
> Now, I understand that all you "early adopters" have gotten used to
> these
> names. However, we all hope that the future will bring more people 
into
> the
> PSIM fold, so an effort to make the standard names more 
understandable
> may
> be good in the long run.
> 
> 
> I. ALL CAPS
> Why are we using all caps? The language is not case sensitive. Just
> curious.
> 
> 
> II. Designator for common variables
> There are a number of variables that have been defined by Brice, 
Grant,
> Dr
> Mabuse, and others. These are the standard things that we will be 
using
> all
> the time, such as ADC1 and DAC1V. I'm just wondering if it would be
> sensible
> to adopt a prefix (or suffix) to identify them. Perhaps a 
lowercase "g"
> (as
> in "global", although all vars are global) so we would have gADC1 
and
> gDAC1V. Maybe "psim" is a better prefix. (Maybe I should just shut 
up!
> ;-)
> 
> An alternative would be to leave the existing names alone, and use a
> prefix
> on one's own variables: myNote, myLoop. But, one reason to clearly
> identify
> the "standard" vars is so that users know immediately which variable
> names
> should not be changed, because they are used in the common 
subroutines,
> etc.
> Such a convention also helps users avoid stepping on variables used 
in
> the
> low level subroutines. I admit that we are not dealing with large
> programs,
> so I hate to make too much of this.
> 
> 
> III. Names
> Some variables have nice, descriptive names, like STOPLED. On the 
other
> hand, the Stop button is IN5. Why is that?
> 
> And then there are ADC1, DAC1, and DAC1V. What's this about? I know 
that
> the
> inputs are ADCs and outputs are DACs, but the PSIM is labeled IN-1 
thru
> IN-4, and OUT-1 thru OUT-4. Therefore, I suggest that ADC1 would be
> better
> named "In1." DAC1V could be "Out1." Isn't that more intuitive?
> 
> (Or gIn1, gOut1, gDAC1... Gin and gout? I guess those are weird 
looking
> names.)
> 
> As for DAC1, that's fine as-is (or as gDAC1 if we use prefixes). The
> LOADALLDACS routine will move Out1 thru Out4 to DAC1 thru DAC4, but
> that's
> not really user code. I'm not concerned about the var names used in 
low
> level code.
> 
> 
> That's about it. Please try not to flame me too severely if you
> disagree.
> There are some IT pros here, so I'd like to hear what they *and* the
> novice
> programmers have to say.
> 
> Wow, thanks for reading all the way through! :-)
> --
> john
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to check out the primary Web site at:
> http://www.SynthModules.com
>   
> Yahoo! Groups Links