🚀 go-pugleaf

Hey this is a nice thread. Isn't there s.th. like comp.lang.advocacy ? :-))
Yet I'm willing to join in.

jhd@herold.franken.de (Joachim Durchholz) wrote:
>jmartin@cs.ucla.edu wrote 14.03.96 on Re: Beware of "C" Hackers -- A rebuttal to Bertrand Meyer:
>
>
>Stuffing as much logic as possible into a single line of C is one possible  
>variant elegance. Such elegance doesn't have any relevance to Software  
>Engineering, of course. It is more related to crossword puzzles, Mensa  
>riddles, the Obfuscated C Contest and all other sort of intellectual  
>challenges. It has no useful purpose beyond itself, and should not be  
>taken seriously for serious work. (It would be ridiculous to take this  
>type of fun stuff seriously!)
>
>But don't confuse these intellectual games with the Real World.
>
No I don't. But many C programmers loving these intellectual games ( O.K. not
the 10+ years experienced ones or Mr. Seebach :-). Or...?)
But the danger to confuse this is much higher in C than it is in other
languages like ADA or EIFFEL.

>
>
>There is one trait among many hackers that will make method gurus uneasy -  
>they don't like to be restricted.
>This makes C popular among hackers - it gives many benefits of discipline  
>(many opportunities for the compiler to do type checking), but allows  
>evading the restrictions whenever necessary (type casts).
>
Exactly. Therefore this hackers are horror if you have to work together with
them (cauze code is too large) or have to rework a hacker's work (Don't flame
me on my use of the work hacker; I mean the ones who like to use all
beastialities of C :-))

>
>Remember the argument that subroutine calls slow down programs.  
>Subroutines have won because they made programming much easier and faster.
>
Oh, you've never been in automotive industry. There people stay with assembler
and hate subroutine calling cause they are sharply RAM/ROM restricted due to
their small embedded controller! A stack ? Virtual memory? No way!

>I haven't said a word of design phase vs. programming phase. And my  
>impression is indeed that a hacker doesn't want to waste time on design  
>when he could use to build working programs. But that is more a question  
>of the point of view; the hackers that build large systems do design in an  
>informal way, and they usually don't document it. Nevertheless all larger  
>programs done by hackers have a design.
>
Yes, and in deed this design is mostly efficient. But if the software is larger
than one wizard can handle and many wizards are working there will there still
be a good design?
And it's NOT a question of point of view whether documenting the (underlaying)
design is a waste of time if you want
-- to maintain code not written by you
-- reuse as many portions as possible in later projects

>
>-Joachim

-- 
	Bernd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not speak for Siemens -- but I hope Siemens will speak in favour of me !