SRL Archive - Discussions and Debates

Ok, what does someone mean when they say in an application "No standards, so I'm voting no". This seems really vague to me almost to the point of being completely unhelpful.

When I think of standards I think of indentation, comments, and generally clean code. There has been more then one occasion where I see someone vote no for "standards" when the actual standards of the code aren't all that bad (just the code is).

Are you voting no because they indent 3 spaces instead of 2? or is it because variable names aren't exactly what you want? Either way, I think standards is somewhat of a bad reason to vote no just because different programmers utilize different styles. Unless the code is completely unreadable, I would ask that instead of just saying "Standards suck", it would be more helpful to say something like "You could simplify x with a for loop, you repeat code a lot and need to make more functions/procedures. ect.."

If someone voted no for me, I would like to know exactly why so I could improve.

Ive learned that standards makes it alot easier to read and edit a script.
People can have diffrent standards but it shouldnt stick out to much!

[ 666 Posts! ]

Bad standards = make me look deeper into code = me more likely to vote no

Yes, I understand that bad standards generally means bad code. My point however is that saying bad standards and leaving it at that is really vague. If you look closer because of bad standards, I would appreciate an explanation of why you think they are bad.

As I have said before, there are some posts that say they vote not because standards are bad, Yet I can't see a thing wrong with the standards. Unless the code is incomprehensible, I really don't think that should be the sole reason for voting no (as it has been in the past)

A good example of what I'm talking about is here

http://www.villavu.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36563

Now, when I read the code, I see absolutely nothing wrong with standards. Unless I was to go through with a fine toothed comb and look for problems (and if I where to do that, any script I read will ultimately have a fault in it). But at a quick first glance, there isn't a thing wrong with them. And yet, there are people that say they vote no because of "standards".

I find that ridiculous as the script looks clean all in all. (ok, I combed through it, and saw a total of 4 problems with standards. Definitely not things that make the code unreadable (forgetting to tab after an if statement, and one if statement shifted too far)

i agree with u boberman i believe that standards do make the script look nicer and vary alot but using that as a basis for voting no is pretty bad and i have seen i happen a fair few times where ppl dont even look at the script just because of bad standards its an instant no

edit: we said simmilar things and posted at the same time thats pretty funny

Read the tutorial in my signature for the standards.

I do not agree fully.

I personally think that each scripter has his/her own style. for some reason, Wizzup? comes to mind, because he always put spaces between his local variables and procedures and then the actual 'begin'.

Style within "standards" is good, I think that any scripter, that persay, put every procedure on one line exhibits qualities such as

1) usually poor scripting.
2) lack of scripting experience, which would usually point to lack of scripting in general (mostly all programmers that have been programming for awhile are at least "pushed into standards"). Lack of interest in scripting or scripting experience = not for SRL Members.

People who show scripting standards:

1) usually better coding
2) usually has some experience under their belt.
3) easier to read, edit, show pride in work (somewhat).


Here's my conclusion really, if you want to make good scripts, which one of the requirements to get into SRL, then you take your time and do it right. If you have a person who doesn't, one of two things has happened:

1) they know about standards but don't use them. - Lack of effort in a script.
2) they don't even know about standards - hasn't been around long enough or had enough scripting experience to script.

Now don't get me wrong, if someone is an outstanding scripting with just a few standards messups, I would certainly vote yes, and I do not think that standards are a good reason to vote no alone. but generally, I think that people that exhibit scripting standards know more what they are doing and are worthy of Membership.

I think its turning into a catch all. If you know he shouldn't be members, but you don't know why you say standers

From: Mylesmadness
I think its turning into a catch all. If you know he shouldn't be members, but you don't know why you say standers

And thats kind of what I am seeing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no advocating poor standards or anything. Its just that "standards" seams to be what people say when they want to vote no, even though standards might be pretty good.

If you can't find a reason to vote no, then you obviously haven't looked at the script close enough and hence shouldn't be voting. (or at least should be voting yes if you don't see anything wrong)

From: pwnaz0r
I do not agree fully.

I personally think that each scripter has his/her own style. for some reason, Wizzup? comes to mind, because he always put spaces between his local variables and procedures and then the actual 'begin'.

Style within "standards" is good, I think that any scripter, that persay, put every procedure on one line exhibits qualities such as

1) usually poor scripting.
2) lack of scripting experience, which would usually point to lack of scripting in general (mostly all programmers that have been programming for awhile are at least "pushed into standards"). Lack of interest in scripting or scripting experience = not for SRL Members.

People who show scripting standards:

1) usually better coding
2) usually has some experience under their belt.
3) easier to read, edit, show pride in work (somewhat).


Here's my conclusion really, if you want to make good scripts, which one of the requirements to get into SRL, then you take your time and do it right. If you have a person who doesn't, one of two things has happened:

1) they know about standards but don't use them. - Lack of effort in a script.
2) they don't even know about standards - hasn't been around long enough or had enough scripting experience to script.

Now don't get me wrong, if someone is an outstanding scripting with just a few standards messups, I would certainly vote yes, and I do not think that standards are a good reason to vote no alone. but generally, I think that people that exhibit scripting standards know more what they are doing and are worthy of Membership.

Maybe it would have been good for me to explain those are the ones Kaitnieks recommended using. And I don't mean to say you can't adapt the standards, just that it is often a good starting point.

Standards are called 'standard' for a reason, IMO. It makes it much easier if everyone writes the same way, however people tend to be a bit anal about it - over capitalizing bold-faced constructs, operators, etc; but on the other hand some easily correctable stuff is done improperly just out of laziness - not spacing properly etc.

However, I don't think it should be a criterion to turn someone down. I mean, if you tell someone that their standards are off, they spend 5 minutes reading and fix them up. It is trivial compared to telling someone: "You don't know how to use colour-finding.".

Aggravating the problem is that SCAR is relatively (to programming languages) loose with syntax - at least in terms of brackets, semicolons, spacing. But meh.