I'm torn between the issue. I discovered old letters in my house from the 1800's and was able to glimpse in the past of how life was like back then. The letters had their words written phonetically, and while I did "notice" what I perceived to be errors at the time, I did understand the letter and remembered that eduction wasn't necessarily standardized back then and not everyone had access or could afford to attend school.

Fast forward to today and a part of me believes that if an educator is actually teaching words and meanings to students that their should be actually definitive meanings for terms when given the chance. We know that written language is derived from verbal communication which is why we used phonetics in the first place. So, for example, if a teacher was teaching the world "there" without a definitive meaning, then students would always have to rely on context clues to figure out if the communicator is saying the equivalent to "there, their, or they're". Which can become even more confusing if there are other words that are also homophones in the same sentence.

Granted we already did with this when we speak, but if you are reading words, then there is the chance to be explicit and avoid the confusion from the beginning as you can specify intent with words.

Again, I'm not the grammar police (English was always my worst subject), but I'm torn between if grammar is overbearing or necessary. Instructions are clearer when a standard exists, but then again someone being pedantic about bad grammar (commas) when the meaning clearly gets across merely seems to belittle someone to feel superior about something irrelevant to the topic. Case and point, when I write a paragraph to defeat someone's argument and they point out that I didn't capitalize a nationality, inferring my argument is thus invalid.

-my 2 cents

So how do I sign up for my $1.00 iTunes credit?

It was spaced out when I typed it up, but when I clicked publish it was all crammed. I tried to edit it, but could't figure it out.

Ideally, with the OP satellite example, you think one loop would be gathering a list of satellites objects (or structs) and then in a different loop there would calculations for the various attributes of each satellite, ideally with descriptive variable names being initially declared 'double longitude =0" and brief comments above for loops such as "//Determines individual satellites per unique GPS frequency However, I've come to accept that people are just different, people are going to code in the manner they are accustomed to, with very few comments. I've come to accept that reading others people's code is just going to suck. If I know the intent of the class and the variables/functions are self-descriptive, I'll be fine. If some names their variables "a1" "a2" "b1", and they are all different data types... then I'm going to have a bad time. But again, I've accepted this. What I can't accept is people coding inefficiently. I'm not even worried about space complexity (within reason), I'm talking about run-time complexity. If you have 3 inner for loops for something that could be done in linear time, I'm going to be sad. If I fix it and try to use this chance as a teaching moment (we all should want to be better) and you shrug and tell me that correctness is all that matters... then I'll stab you. The best algorithm isn't always obvious, and while I don't expect many of us to employ dynamic programming concepts... if we can't get people to agree on a coding style (since that is preference), the least we can do is agree that we don't want our code to completely suck. I mean if you have a O(n^3) subroutine, you should ask yourself if that is really the best you can do, at least think about it. /rant over