Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look

From	Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c++
Subject	Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look
Date	2014-08-07 11:06 +0000
Organization	Netfront http://www.netfront.net/
Message-ID	<lrvmj2$30qf$3@adenine.netfront.net> (permalink)
References	(7 earlier) <uutAv.140204$L6.7454@fx08.iad> <lrn7ft$vsh$2@adenine.netfront.net> <I6NDv.173094$DV4.53284@fx05.iad> <lrpv7r$4d9$1@adenine.netfront.net> <tR5Ev.219489$Ad6.122349@fx28.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
> The code works, and it's been in production for a quarter century.  Why
> fix what ain't broken?

If the code never gets modified and expanded, then don't.

The day a new programmer steps in to add improvements may well break
it and cause some nice debugging nightmares.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Thread

The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-16 08:06 -0700
  Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-16 16:12 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "K. Frank" <kfrank29.c@gmail.com> - 2014-07-18 09:39 -0700
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-07-19 03:48 -0700
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-24 05:36 +0000
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 10:08 -0500
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2014-07-24 18:00 +0200
        Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 17:36 +0100
          Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2014-07-24 12:28 -0500
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-07-24 23:50 +0200
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-07-25 05:36 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-07-25 18:18 +0000
            Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:29 +0100
              Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2014-07-24 23:45 +0100
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-07-25 14:05 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-04 05:59 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-04 14:52 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-05 06:57 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 05:53 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Martijn Lievaart <m@rtij.nl.invlalid> - 2014-08-05 16:20 +0200
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-05 16:58 -0700
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:04 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2014-08-05 14:27 +0000
                Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2014-08-07 11:06 +0000
    Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2014-07-28 21:01 +0200
      Re: The (anti) C++ FQA Lite -- worth a look Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2014-08-03 16:22 -0700

csiph-web