🚀 go-pugleaf

I shouldn't do this, but my wife'll tell you I never do what I should ...

In article <65696@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
 [... everythang I ain't innerested in 'sbeen nuked]

>                But, at least in my experience, pointers are associated
> with more than their fair share of hard to find errors.  Why shouldn't
> this experience be a valid point of discussion?  How about the time
> it takes to read and understand code - is not this also a topic we may
> discuss?

YES!!  This *is* a topic to discuss!  I have another posting (which is why
I shouldn't do this, I'm being redundant) which emphasizes this very point.
The time to read and understand code is much more important than the micro-
seconds some cryptic implementation may save.  The fellow with the Hermes
language stated it best ... get it correct first, then worry about efficiency.

Get it correct in a readable fashion!  If it's correct and unreadable, it
can not be improved.  If it's incorrect and at least readable, someone can
fix it quickly.  If it's incorrect, unreadable, but *fast*, it's worthless.

(I'm *so* glad the subject of this thread has changed!  ;-)
--
=============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi=============
"We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no   |            Alvin
longer in service.  Please check the value of pi,     |   "the Chipmunk"
or pray to your local deity for assistance."          |          Sylvain
= = = = = = =All this time I thought it was spelled "diety"= = = = = = =