🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <840230240snz@pdlmail.demon.co.uk>
           pete@pdlmail.demon.co.uk "Peter Disdale" wrote:

>Tads are most definitely bigger than smidgeons:

It reminds me of the 'proof' that Heaven is hotter than Hell <g>...

>Tads (Technically-unavoidable ADditions) often arise due to
>over-optimism on the part of the programmer.  And let's face it:
>one has to be optimistic to be a programmer - if we didn't
>believe that our latest creation would compile and run
>(error-free) first time, we'd give up, right?

No way!  If anything compiles first time I get *very* suspicious.  And
in fact that has some basis, not just paranoia (not that I'm knocking
paranoia, of course, sometimes they really *are* all out to get you) or
superstition:  If a program has had several compilation errors then at
least I've looked at it several times to corerect them, and I'm more
likely to have noticed logic flaws.

>Smidgeons OTOH (SMall Increases Due to Generalised Encoding,
>Optimised Not-a-lot) are normally down to inadequacies of the
>compiler, though can be caused by inelegant code construction.

Or even more by *elegant* code construction - the sort of code which is
easy to understand and maintain is seldom the most efficient, even with
modern optimising compilers...

>And since this latter is impossible to contemplate, one has the
>choice of changing compiler (not usually viable) or resorting to
>the introdution of non-portability (as mentioned above).

Non-portability is even less viable than changing compilers, in my
opinion.  Where it exists I encapsulate it in a little module of its
own if I get the chance...

.-------------------------------.-------------------------------------.
|    chris@keris.demon.co.uk    |  FIAWOL (Filking Is A Way Of Life)  |
`-------------------------------^-------------------------------------'