Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #609400 > unrolled thread

Loop(100)

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Loop(100) Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-17 12:34 -0800
    Command Line jockies use plenty of aliases, no ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-17 21:59 -0800
    Re: Loop(100) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-19 17:20 +0000
      I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-19 10:56 -0800
        Re: I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-20 12:30 +0000
          Other people's code is hard to learn/modify. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-20 06:06 -0800
            Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-20 15:31 +0100
              Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-20 09:04 -0600
                Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-12-20 13:33 -0800
            Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-20 15:06 +0000
              What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-20 09:59 -0800
                Re: What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-20 23:22 +0000
                  I won, bigly. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-20 16:15 -0800
                    AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-21 02:55 -0800
                      Re: AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-21 14:33 +0100
                      Re: AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-22 03:21 +0000
                        My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-22 02:36 -0800
                          Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-22 21:22 +0000
                            Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-23 07:54 -0600
                              Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. flatfish+++ <flatfish@linuxmail.org> - 2016-12-23 09:35 -0500
                                Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-23 16:21 +0000
                                  My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-23 08:52 -0800
                                    Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-12-23 19:12 +0000
                                      Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-23 13:27 -0600
                                        Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-23 20:56 +0100
                                          Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-12-23 13:32 -0700
                                            Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-23 22:40 +0100
                                              Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-12-23 15:19 -0700
                                              My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-23 17:06 -0800
                                                Re: My C++ Coding Standards ( apologies to Bjarne Stroustrup ). Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-12-24 10:40 +0100
                                          Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-12-24 14:04 +0000
                                  I explain each of the warnings I disable, and why. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 03:00 -0800
                                    Re: I explain each of the warnings I disable, and why. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-19 12:09 +0100
                                    Re: I explain each of the warnings I disable, and why. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:29 +0000
                                      Re: I explain each of the warnings I disable, and why. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-20 06:48 -0600
                                        Re: I explain each of the warnings I disable, and why. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-20 16:52 +0100
                                It's fucking email ! ! Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 02:53 -0800
                              Someday, if you're lucky, you'll know the freedoms I enjoy. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2016-12-23 08:05 -0800
                              Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-12-23 13:49 -0700
                            Whitespace and (borked) comments. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 02:24 -0800
                              Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-19 11:30 +0100
                                Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-19 07:29 -0600
                                Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-01-19 10:36 -0500
                                  Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-01-19 16:48 +0100
                              Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2017-01-19 11:20 -0700
                                Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-01-19 14:49 -0500
                              Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:26 +0000
                                About a hundred thousand people have used my code, last 24 years. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 20:57 -0800
                                Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-20 13:39 +0000
                                  Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-01-20 07:46 -0600
                                    Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-21 14:08 +0000
                                  Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-20 22:02 +0000
                                    Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-20 18:31 -0800
                                    Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-01-21 14:08 +0000
                                      Re: Whitespace and (borked) comments. Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2017-01-22 17:58 +0000
                        Whenever/Wherever you spot a lot of whitespace and comments. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-01-19 02:18 -0800
                    Re: I won, bigly. Silver Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-12-21 09:09 -0500
                    Re: I won, bigly. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-21 17:37 -0500
                  Re: What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? ! chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-21 07:14 -0600

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#609400 — Loop(100)

Incubus wrote:
>   for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
>     [...]
> What is the advantage of using '++i' instead of 'i++' ?

I see no need to optimize integer increments.
My loops look like this:

  wchar _T[999], *P = _T ;

  Loop(3) { int Y = J ;
    Loop(4) P += Str( P, L"( %d, %d )%s", J, Y, J == LLL - 1 ? L"\n" :  L" " );  }

  printf( _T );

Given:

  #define  Loop( N )  int LLL = ( N ), J = -1 ; while ( ++J < LLL )
  #define  StrF  fwprintf
  typedef  wchar_t  wchar ;

Output:

  ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 0 )
  ( 0, 1 ) ( 1, 1 ) ( 2, 1 ) ( 3, 1 )
  ( 0, 2 ) ( 1, 2 ) ( 2, 2 ) ( 3, 2 )

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#609480 — Command Line jockies use plenty of aliases, no ? !

You ( DFS ) replied ( to me ):
> >   wchar _T[999], *P = _T ;
> >   Loop(3) { int Y = J ;
> >     Loop(4) P += Str( P, L"( %d, %d )%s", J, Y, J == LLL - 1 ? L"\n" :  L" " );  }
> >
> >   printf( _T );
> >
> > Given:
> >
> >   #define  Loop( N )  int LLL = ( N ), J = -1 ; while ( ++J < LLL )
> >   #define  Str  swprintf  //  Not: StrF  fwprintf
> >   typedef  wchar_t  wchar ;
> >
> > Output:
> >
> >   ( 0, 0 ) ( 1, 0 ) ( 2, 0 ) ( 3, 0 )
> >   ( 0, 1 ) ( 1, 1 ) ( 2, 1 ) ( 3, 1 )
> >   ( 0, 2 ) ( 1, 2 ) ( 2, 2 ) ( 3, 2 )
> 
> Strange code, as always.  
> You'll have to come back from the grave to maintain it.
> My loops are more traditional: [[...]]

Command Line jockies use plenty of aliases, no ? !

> alias ll='ls -l'

I'm the same, but mine are called macros (#define).

I use C code where/when most others would use a set of command lines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609561

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Incubus wrote:
>>   for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
>>     [...]
>> What is the advantage of using '++i' instead of 'i++' ?

>I see no need to optimize integer increments.

A good compiler will optimize better than you can, anyway.

>My loops look like this:

...

>Given:

>  #define  Loop( N )  int LLL = ( N ), J = -1 ; while ( ++J < LLL )

A tiny example of the type of bizarre coding styles I've had to deal
with that makes code difficult to maintain.

This is quite minor and if I had to maintain code where this was the
only strange coding example in it, I'd actually be relieved/happy.
Add in a bunch of other oddball stuff and it becomes hard to follow.

But for grins, I'll ask you, why not a "for (J=0; J < LLL; J++)"
based construct which was designed for such loops?

And what was the advantage of "J = -1; while ( ++J ..." where the
intent was to go through the loop with J == 0 the first time. I
see no reason other than to confuse the next guy.  Maybe job
security for you?  A good compiler will optimize the assign to -1
away to a clear, on hardware where a clear/set to 0 is a bit faster
than setting to a nonzero constant.  That's irrelevant unless the
loop itself was in a larger loop and the code was being squeezed
for every microsecond.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609566 — I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to.

You ( Michael Moroney ) asked me:
> why not a "for (J=0; J < LLL; J++)"
> based construct which was designed for such loops?

I simply don't like it, I much prefer while(), 
with the i++ happening _at_the_start_ of the loop.

But that's just me; -- you do it your way,
with your macros/aliases/definitions.
Now, if you can't do that, fine,
at least you're getting paid.

I'm getting paid, and loving it.

> A good compiler will optimize the assign to -1
> away to a clear, on hardware where a clear/set to 0 
> is a bit faster than setting to a nonzero constant.

I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to;
I don't have separate release/debug modes.

P.S. I'm enjoying Leonard Cohen's "Boogie Street".
  He wrote it in 2001, after being in 
  a Japanese Budhist monestarty for 6 years.

  He said the monestary was all about living
  with No privacy... out on Boogie Street.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rswKZ0PNY_0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609696 — Re: I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>I don't worry about "optimizations", don't need to;
>I don't have separate release/debug modes.

I'm pointing out the maintainability issues, not efficiency.  For
example, your x.exe source is a mess, maintainability wise. Fortunately,
nobody else will ever have to maintain it.

What you do for a living, on the other hand...

My earlier gig was a mess, as I mentioned.  Partly due to age, partly due
to "clever" code jockeys all doing their thing...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609706 — Other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

For anything larger than "Hello World",
other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

My Loop() macro neither helps nor hurts that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609709 — Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

 wrote:

> For anything larger than "Hello World",
> other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

Wrong. People who write code which is hard to maintain by others have no 
business programming at all

> My Loop() macro neither helps nor hurts that.

*One* such Macro might not. Your horrible code consists of *lots* of those 
stupid constructs. You are not a "programmer". You shit your lunatic macros 
all over the place

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609710 — Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Relf wrote:
>>
>> For anything larger than "Hello World",
>> other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

If the code was written by a brain-damaged sociopath, like you, sure.

>Wrong. People who write code which is hard to maintain by others have no 
>business programming at all

If someone is paying you to code, it's a *job requirement* to design
the code to be maintainable by others.  Failure to do so would be a
breach of professional ethics.

>> My Loop() macro neither helps nor hurts that.
>
>*One* such Macro might not. Your horrible code consists of *lots* of those 
>stupid constructs. You are not a "programmer". You shit your lunatic macros 
>all over the place

Relf is one of those shit programmers who gets-off on making his code
inscrutable to others.

-- 
"(chrisv) claims (Relf's) code is shitty. Let's see him substantiate
it with some facts and a code analysis."  -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609764 — Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 7:04:16 AM UTC-8, chrisv wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 
> > Relf wrote:
> >>
> >> For anything larger than "Hello World",
> >> other people's code is hard to learn/modify.
> 
> If the code was written by a brain-damaged sociopath, like you, sure.
> 
> >Wrong. People who write code which is hard to maintain by others have no 
> >business programming at all
> 
> If someone is paying you to code, it's a *job requirement* to design
> the code to be maintainable by others.  Failure to do so would be a
> breach of professional ethics.
> 
> >> My Loop() macro neither helps nor hurts that.
> >
> >*One* such Macro might not. Your horrible code consists of *lots* of those 
> >stupid constructs. You are not a "programmer". You shit your lunatic macros 
> >all over the place
> 
> Relf is one of those shit programmers who gets-off on making his code
> inscrutable to others.
> 
> -- 
> "(chrisv) claims (Relf's) code is shitty. Let's see him substantiate
> it with some facts and a code analysis."  -  trolling fsckwit
> "Ezekiel"


I used to work on large mainframe assembler programs in a banking system.  My team leader swore that the developers of that code must have ended up locked up!

Double-A

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609711 — Re: Other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>For anything larger than "Hello World",
>other people's code is hard to learn/modify.

No, not really.  I am working with a high quality code base now.
Code got/gets reviewed by peers before becoming part of the code
stream.  Kooky macros won't make the cut, as the reviewers would
respond with "WTF is that?"

Most of the code is rather easy to follow.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609726 — What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? !

You ( Michael Moroney ) told me:
> Code got/gets reviewed by peers before becoming part of the code
> stream.  Kooky macros won't make the cut, as the reviewers would
> respond with "WTF is that?"

What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? !

Command Line jockies use plenty of aliases, no ? !

> alias ll='ls -l'

I do the same, only mine are called macros (#define).

I use C code where/when others use command lines.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609789 — Re: What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? !

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>You ( Michael Moroney ) told me:
>> Code got/gets reviewed by peers before becoming part of the code
>> stream.  Kooky macros won't make the cut, as the reviewers would
>> respond with "WTF is that?"

>What The Fuck is wrong with your peers ? !

Nothing.  This is a professional software development group.  We
frequently have to get into each others' code. More relevant, we
have to get into code written by people long gone. We have to write
knowing someday, someone else will come along to fix a bug or add a
feature or whatever.

We use macros all the time.  Good clear macros are valuable.  K00ky
macros don't make the cut, nobody even tries.

>Command Line jockies use plenty of aliases, no ? !

>> alias ll='ls -l'

People do whatever they want in their login file. It's stuff others
will have to deal with that matters.

Simple, clear stuff like that definition are fine.  Confusing stuff
isn't.

Maybe I should try to slip something like that loop macro in my next
reviewed code and see what others have to say about it....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609799 — I won, bigly.

My code was challenged by old school ( FORTRAN ) professors
and young, high priced, programmers from MicroSoft's Visual Studio team.

They all lost; I won, bigly.
I'm not bragging, it's just true.

If you can, try to use macros more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609830 — AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints.

You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to me ):
> > My code was challenged by old school ( FORTRAN ) professors
> > and young, high priced, programmers from MicroSoft's Visual Studio team.
> >
> > They all lost; I won, bigly.
> > I'm not bragging, it's just true.
> > If you can, try to use macros more.
> 
> It's nice to win.  What was the challenge?
> Who competed?  What were the rules?
> What was the prize?

The aforementioned people wanted shorter lines
( I like 236 columns ), auto formatted ( whitespace ),
with lots of comments.

I refused.  I insisted on _manual_ whitespace.
WhiteSpace is like a fingerprint, it's very revealing.
AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints.

They lost; I won, bigly.
I retain control of the code;
I'm still getting paid, they aren't.

My code looks like this:

  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2015.PNG
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
  [ Red is the old code, Green is the new stuff ]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609834 — Re: AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints.

 wrote:

> You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to me ):
>> > My code was challenged by old school ( FORTRAN ) professors
>> > and young, high priced, programmers from MicroSoft's Visual Studio
>> > team.
>> >
>> > They all lost; I won, bigly.
>> > I'm not bragging, it's just true.
>> > If you can, try to use macros more.
>> 
>> It's nice to win.  What was the challenge?
>> Who competed?  What were the rules?
>> What was the prize?
> 
> The aforementioned people wanted shorter lines
> ( I like 236 columns ), auto formatted ( whitespace ),
> with lots of comments.
> 
> I refused.  I insisted on _manual_ whitespace.
> WhiteSpace is like a fingerprint, it's very revealing.
> AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints.
> 
> They lost; I won, bigly.
> I retain control of the code;
> I'm still getting paid, they aren't.
> 
> My code looks like this:
> 
>   http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Visual-Studio-2015.PNG
>   http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
>   [ Red is the old code, Green is the new stuff ]

And the sad reality is that you are even proud of that extremely shitty 
"code". The good thing is that usually "programmers" like you code only for 
themselves. Nobody in his right mind would employ such a dimbulb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609973 — Re: AutoFormatting hides the fingerprints.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>You ( Mr. DFS ) replied ( to me ):
>> > My code was challenged by old school ( FORTRAN ) professors
>> > and young, high priced, programmers from MicroSoft's Visual Studio team.
>> >
>> > They all lost; I won, bigly.
>> > I'm not bragging, it's just true.
>> > If you can, try to use macros more.

I use macros where appropriate.

I don't use stupid macros (nor could I, except in my own code).

>> It's nice to win.  What was the challenge?
>> Who competed?  What were the rules?
>> What was the prize?

>The aforementioned people wanted shorter lines
>( I like 236 columns ), auto formatted ( whitespace ),
>with lots of comments.

Ewww...  all that makes it so hard to follow.  One statement per line,
with a sane line length.  Proper whitespace (including indentation where
appropriate breaks things up so it's readable, a solid mass of characters.
Comments tell the next guy what you are doing and why/how.  Old macro code
I see typically has one comment per instruction/macro call, on the right
side.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#609995 — My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post.

You ( Michael Moroney ) replied ( to me ):
> > The aforementioned people wanted shorter lines
> > ( I like 236 columns ), auto formatted ( whitespace ),
> > with lots of comments.
> 
> Ewww...  all that makes it so hard to follow.  
> One statement per line, with a sane line length.  
> 
> Proper whitespace ( including indentation where appropriate ) 
> breaks things up so it's readable, not a solid mass of characters.
> 
> Comments tell the next guy what you are doing and why/how.  
> Old macro code I see typically has 
> one comment per instruction/macro call, on the right side.

I'll tell you ( yet again ) what I told them:

  My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post;
  sorry, but it's _not_ like an advert, or comic strip, 
  with lots of graphics, big fonts, color and WhiteSpace.

I won the day; I retained control; I get paid -- They lost.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610066 — Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>I'll tell you ( yet again ) what I told them:

>  My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post;
>  sorry, but it's _not_ like an advert, or comic strip, 
>  with lots of graphics, big fonts, color and WhiteSpace.

>I won the day; I retained control; I get paid -- They lost.

Peer code review works very well here. Sometimes a bug gets
found the original author missed.  The maintainability/
legibility get checked if necessarily, since it is
expected that someday, someone else (perhaps one of them)
may have to maintain it.

"Dense code" is for executable files, the output of compilers
and linkers.  Source code exists for humans as few humans
ever write in the machine language of the target computer,
humans use computer languages.

Again, code for your own use or one-offs that aren't part
of the product can be anything, but professional coders
write with future maintainability in mind.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610146 — Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
>>I'll tell you ( yet again ) what I told them:
>
>>  My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post;
>>  sorry, but it's _not_ like an advert, or comic strip, 
>>  with lots of graphics, big fonts, color and WhiteSpace.

How ironic, from someone who posts HTML to USENET.

>>I won the day; I retained control; I get paid -- They lost.

You're a sociopath.

>Peer code review works very well here. Sometimes a bug gets
>found the original author missed.  The maintainability/
>legibility get checked if necessarily, since it is
>expected that someday, someone else (perhaps one of them)
>may have to maintain it.
>
>"Dense code" is for executable files, the output of compilers
>and linkers.  Source code exists for humans as few humans
>ever write in the machine language of the target computer,
>humans use computer languages.
>
>Again, code for your own use or one-offs that aren't part
>of the product can be anything, but professional coders
>write with future maintainability in mind.

He's had all this explained before.  You may as well be talking to a
brick wall.

-- 
"I'd estimate 95% of all kernel + GNU + enduser code was written for
free by hobbyists."  -  DumFSck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#610149 — Re: My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post.

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 07:54:55 -0600, chrisv wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>>
>>>I'll tell you ( yet again ) what I told them:
>>
>>>  My code is dense, and hard to read, like the Washington Post;
>>>  sorry, but it's _not_ like an advert, or comic strip, 
>>>  with lots of graphics, big fonts, color and WhiteSpace.
> 
> How ironic, from someone who posts HTML to USENET.

Is that what he is posting?
40Tude displays fonts so small I need a magnifying glass to read it.
When I was playing with slrn the other day when I open his messages it
asks if I want to process a MIME article.

Weird stuff.


-- 
flatfish+++
mariana trench

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web