I think the problem is that "style" is a loaded word.  When we adopt someone
else's style, it's akin to the abandonment of our right to be a rugged
individualist.

I prefer to think of it this way:

Many people came before me in this world of software engineering, some did the
job well, others did it terribly.  I have read the code written by both groups,
and I know which one was better at communicating to ME.  I try to imitate the
good stuff, so that some day it will be second nature - some day someone will
need to read my code and I don't want to be called on the phone to explain it.

The "rules" evolved in the good old Darwinian way, just like I did.  I am not
experienced or brilliant enough to create my own "style" hoping that it will
communicate as well as the time-tested one.  Smalltalk would have been dead long
ago (Bertrand Meyer certainly thinks so :-) ) if it were not for the clear and
simple way it explains itself - a tribute to the creators of Smalltalk who
adopted a clear style early in the game, perhaps by accident.

I have yet to see a C "style" that is clearer than the examples in the K&R
books, nor a better Smalltalk style than in the old sources or the
Blue/Orange/Purple/Green books.  My call for better documentation was prompted
mostly by the divergence from this style of the Squeak sources as they get
bigger and have a longer list of contributors.

Ed