🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <dillon.7260@overload.Berkeley.CA.US> dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:

> In article <1990Nov15.170810.5868@sisd.kodak.com> jeh@sisd.kodak.com (Ed Hanway) writes:
>     Many optimizations fall into that category .. reading the description
>     makes you feel good because your compiler is 'optimizing' but the
>     reality is that they do not do a pittling thing.  Inexperienced
>     programmers do not code well enough for them to make much of a
>     difference, and experienced programmers code well enough that they do
>     not make much of a difference either.  Of course, there are many, many

I write a lot of code that must look like a non-"experienced
programmer" wrote.  I do this on purpose because (1) I feel it is
easier to read (2) I assume that it's syntatical sugar that I assume
the compiler will (internally) be re-written into the "experienced"
form.

I guess it's not "macho" to write readable, maintainable code (just
kidding folks, if you want to re-ignite that useless flame war take it
to comp.misc!).  :-) :-)

Anything a compiler company can do to encourage programmers to create
maintainable code should be encouraged.  (Now that's a sentence!)

Does that sway you?

Tom
P.S.  Obligatory ungrateful user question:  I own the non-shareware
version of DICE... so Matt, when will there be a debugger? :-)
-- 
tlimonce@drew.edu     Tom Limoncelli      "Flash!  Flash!  I love you!
tlimonce@drew.bitnet  +1 201 408 5389        ...but we only have fourteen
tlimonce@drew.uucp    limonce@pilot.njin.net       hours to save the earth!"