[DonaldFisk]

There's a difference between style guides, like this, and standards, like MISRA.

Style is concerned with the appearance of the code, and is largely subjective. Many languages, like Common Lisp and Java, have got this nailed: the same style is used everywhere. In the C world, there are endless arguments about levels of indentation, the position of braces, etc.

Standards ensure that good, safe, coding practices are followed. For C, these are needed for many applications because the language is weakly typed and inherently unsafe in many ways. Other languages, such as Ada, have safety built into the language.

[c0rtex]

Here's a great talk that addresses style vs. standards in the context of NASA and space flight software.

https://www.usenix.org/conference/hotdep12/workshop-program/...

He presents a compelling case for why you should use automated tools to check compliance against coding standards (the standards don't do you any good otherwise).

As far as style goes, pipe your code through indent if you have hangups about formatting. That way you can spend your time on issues that are known to be correlated with risk.

[aidenn0]

> Style is concerned with the appearance of the code, and is largely subjective. Many languages, like Common Lisp and Java, have got this nailed: the same style is used everywhere. In the C world, there are endless arguments about levels of indentation, the position of braces, etc.

I'm struggling with where to first disagree with this. Some style guides deal only with code appearance, but they can also include things like preferred iteration mechanisms, maximum function lengths or even cyclomatic complexity.

Comon Lisp doesn't even remotely have standardized style; ask a dozen CL programmers how they would perform an operation on each element of a list and you'll get answers including: MAPCAR, MAP, DOLIST, LOOP, ITERATE.

It does have a standard for indentation, which is roughly "however emacs would indent your code" but that breaks down when DSLs get involved (see how different people indent LOOP for an example).

[edit]

One simple example of a style guide entry that is not primarily concerned with the appearance of code. There are dozens more in that one style guide:

https://google.github.io/styleguide/lispguide.xml#EVAL

[DonaldFisk]

We're disagreeing about the meanings of style vs. standards here. I'm using style in the commonly accepted sense, e.g. "hair stylist", "stylish", "all style and no substance."

Maximum function lengths and cyclomatic complexity are important but I'd put those under standards.

Lisp gives you a lot of flexibility regarding how you do things, but once you choose a way, that constrains how your code should be laid out, i.e. its style. EMACS indents code in the accepted Lisp style. It doesn't define it. It implements it.

Saying you should avoid eval at run time is a coding standard, not style.

[aidenn0]

> We're disagreeing about the meanings of style vs. standards here. I'm using style in the commonly accepted sense, e.g. "hair stylist", "stylish", "all style and no substance."

Indeed we are. I'm considering "style guide" as a noun phrase to include many things that you would call standards, and comes from the definition of style "a manner of doing something."

[TeMPOraL]

> It does have a standard for indentation, which is roughly "however emacs would indent your code" but that breaks down when DSLs get involved (see how different people indent LOOP for an example).

It actually makes me think that there should be a standardized way for including indentation hints. CL's &body in macros is not nearly enough for any kind of complicated DSLs.

That's minor aesthetics anyway. There are always some degrees of freedom in it, but Lisp has historically much less of those than C-like languages.