Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
???
08/08/05 20:29
Read: times


 		 #99015 - Smart and Neat Code
Responding to: ???'s previous message
Jan Waclawek said:
Quid pro quo, that's all. HLLs are safe, but resource-consuming. "Neat" programming style is the same as HLL (just there is no enforcement of it except self-discipline).

Did I say somewhere I advocate any one?

I'll say only this. If I was conducting a design review and this code was presented by the design team I would need them to have a very powerful argument for doing it this way and only this way. I would want to know what all the alternatives were and why they had all been rejected.

Ian

List of 53 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
Week puzzle            01/01/70 00:00      
   why is one a subroutine and another a ta            01/01/70 00:00      
      no RTOS            01/01/70 00:00      
   last there was discussion, in this an an            01/01/70 00:00      
      week            01/01/70 00:00      
   Last pushed in - first popped out            01/01/70 00:00      
      come in            01/01/70 00:00      
   Will it work?            01/01/70 00:00      
      Yes it will            01/01/70 00:00      
         Mmmmm?            01/01/70 00:00      
         And another thought            01/01/70 00:00      
            it's perfectly safe...            01/01/70 00:00      
               Still not convinced            01/01/70 00:00      
                  dangers            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Choices            01/01/70 00:00      
                        the same in real life            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Smart and Neat Code            01/01/70 00:00      
                              are you a math major? :)            01/01/70 00:00      
                                 Not a maths major            01/01/70 00:00      
                        yes            01/01/70 00:00      
                  what dangerous            01/01/70 00:00      
                     If misuse is chronic...            01/01/70 00:00      
   CALL + RET != JUMP            01/01/70 00:00      
      ?????????            01/01/70 00:00      
         oops Oleg Has the code to manage it sorr            01/01/70 00:00      
            return address            01/01/70 00:00      
      you got it!            01/01/70 00:00      
         Thanks for the puzzle :-)            01/01/70 00:00      
   a question            01/01/70 00:00      
      why not            01/01/70 00:00      
         well            01/01/70 00:00      
            optimisation            01/01/70 00:00      
               I have seen that happen when the require            01/01/70 00:00      
                  it's the same than if you miss a push or            01/01/70 00:00      
         The Trick is:            01/01/70 00:00      
   the answer            01/01/70 00:00      
      you never answered            01/01/70 00:00      
         solid or intermittent problem            01/01/70 00:00      
            difference between solid or intermittent            01/01/70 00:00      
   Why Push!!!            01/01/70 00:00      
      side effect            01/01/70 00:00      
         Another SAVE_CONTEXT            01/01/70 00:00      
            Sounds like a housekeeping nightmare            01/01/70 00:00      
               Sounds like a housekeeping nightmare            01/01/70 00:00      
               it IS a housekeeping nightmare            01/01/70 00:00      
                  Erik            01/01/70 00:00      
                     Pay no attention            01/01/70 00:00      
                        Donald, if you took the time to read wha            01/01/70 00:00      
                           Reading difficulties            01/01/70 00:00      
                              sorry, used wrong word            01/01/70 00:00      
                     no problem with any post, just with stat            01/01/70 00:00      
            maybe because            01/01/70 00:00      
      eh?            01/01/70 00:00      

Back to Subject List