NetLinx Language Reference Guide / NetLinx Programming Conventions Guide

[Jorde Vorstenbosch]

I'm checking the NetLinx Language Reference Guide (which you can find
in Tech Centre).

Points I've seen so far:

+ _Expressions will not compile outside the context of a statement.
- It is strongly recommended that each statement appear on a
separate line. The compiler cannot enforce this since full backward
compatibility with the previous Axcess language must be maintained.
- It is also strongly recommended that semicolons be used to
terminate each statement (as in the C language)._
+ Pascal case is used
+ Upper-case for reserved words
+ Hungarian Notation is used
+ They seem to be using CALL as their main subroutine function instead
of functions.

Perhaps worth mentioning
+ Very inconsistent (using 'IF' then using 'else' for example)

As I go through it throughout the week I'll add things to the
discussion, but I was wondering if any of you found something peculiar
whilst going through it. I also have a document with 'programming
conventions' that I got from the local AMX representative last week. I
had never seen it till last week and I kinda wondered why this wasn't
distributed with the classes. (same for the reference guide).

I don't know about the classes in the US, but in the UK they don't
even mention that they have these.

[Kim Burgess]

I dug up a few of those tech docs when I started on the libraries. As you mentioned a lot of it seems to be very out of date (CALL's, seriously?) and inconsistent which was the reason for putting together the wiki page for the project.

If you find anything of use in your travels add it in if its pretty black and white, otherwise put it up for discussion.

Cheers.

......................................................
Kim Burgess

P  +61 4 2339 9187
E   con...@kimburgess.info
W  www.kimburgess.info

[Jorde Vorstenbosch]

Last Revised: 11/04/2010, that really frightens me. What I said was
based on the octobre version. Not sure what has changed though. That
isn't reported. Can't see revisions either.

Is anyone in contact with the people responsible for this document?
I'm europe based so I don't have contact with AMX in the States.

I think a videoconference with them and several of us could turn out
rather well, we all agree that things need to change. We don't exactly
agree on how, but that can be established in such a meeting.

Maybe we can call ACE meetings, simular to crestron's CAIP meetings.
(Still need to get my ACE Programmer certificate though). If anyone is
familiar with that? If not I'll explain.

On Nov 7, 10:08 pm, Kim Burgess <cont...@kimburgess.info> wrote:
> I dug up a few of those tech docs when I started on the libraries. As you
> mentioned a lot of it seems to be very out of date (CALL's, seriously?)
> and inconsistent which was the reason for putting together the wiki page for

> the project<http://code.google.com/p/amx-netlinx-common/wiki/CodeFormatAndCommenting>
> .

>
> If you find anything of use in your travels add it in if its pretty black
> and white, otherwise put it up for discussion.
>
> Cheers.
>
> ......................................................
> Kim Burgess
>

> *P*  +61 4 2339 9187
> *E*   cont...@kimburgess.info
> *W*  www.kimburgess.info

[true]

Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "ACE Meetings?"

I am not ACE and have no desire to be. Training is flawed. Also, a
language discussion between only those who have spent money on flawed
training seems both elitist and wrong. If any discussions occur it
should be amongst any interested parties.

I don't think any of us have been in contact with AMX. The only good
relation I have is with a sales guy. Keep in mind, most of their
programming force is used to staring at capslock and improperly used
systems hungarian. AMX also loves to make money. Since discussions
would likely involve alienating the first and have nothing to do with
the second, I am not sure how far they would go or how much they would
care to listen...

Also, I haven't read this paper, but is it a system / compiler spec
with formatting guidelines added or does it deal mostly with formatting?

On Nov 10, 2010, at 2:13 AM, Jorde Vorstenbosch <jordevor...@gmail.com

[Jorde Vorstenbosch]

On Nov 10, 4:27 pm, true <true...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "ACE Meetings?"
> I am not ACE and have no desire to be. Training is flawed. Also, a  
> language discussion between only those who have spent money on flawed  
> training seems both elitist and wrong. If any discussions occur it  
> should be amongst any interested parties.

That's a different discussion all together, we need to be sure of a
certain standard, and unless people openly show some code we aren't
sure of their level.
ACE should at least signify the capabilities of someone who hasn't
openly posted code or made good suggestions.

> I don't think any of us have been in contact with AMX. The only good  
> relation I have is with a sales guy. Keep in mind, most of their  
> programming force is used to staring at capslock and improperly used  
> systems hungarian.

I'm hoping we can convince them of this path, make them see the light.
The light that's called modern world and that also means modern
programming conventions and a modern language.

> AMX also loves to make money. Since discussions  
> would likely involve alienating the first and have nothing to do with  
> the second, I am not sure how far they would go or how much they would  
> care to listen...

Don't we all love making money to some degree?

Discussions would definitely mean 'alienating' their current standard
and has everything to do with the second. For if the language given to
the programmers is more powerful and easier to use it also means less
support and better systems, which turns in to more sales etc.

> Also, I haven't read this paper, but is it a system / compiler spec  
> with formatting guidelines added or does it deal mostly with formatting?

It's virtually a book about what the language can do and a way to do
it. It's as much a formatting guideline as an explanation of the
language.

I've seen it updated twice in a short time, however nothing is said
about what has changed and why it has changed. It is clear that
programmer's of different levels have 'messed about' with this
document as some examples are good and consistent and others are pure
crap.

In the end it all boils down to what we as a community do, but with
the support of the creators we can achieve a new standard.

Maybe it's time to let AXCESS go and focus completely on this new
world.