Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!DHowell.ES@Xerox.ARPA
From: DHowell.ES@Xerox.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: more questions about efficient C code
Message-ID: <11435@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 13:37:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11435
Posted: Tue Jul  9 13:37:34 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 00:15:09 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 19


>	Somebody mentioned economy of expression being a good thing;
>agreed.  In this particular case the idiom is so well ingrained that I
>don't think twice about it.  In fact, doing it any other way would
>require more thought.

Don't think too much, it could be dangerous :-)

But really, if you must keep up the high priesthood of programming, then
go ahead
and use your idioms.  I personally think that programming is a tool for
all and not a science for a few.  Idioms which are believed to be more
efficient (sometimes mistakenly) should be given up in favor of
constructs which are common to most programming languages.  I know that
things can't be done the same in all programming languages, but what can
be, should.  It is simply a matter of making it understandable to all
who are involved with a project, programmers and non-programmers alike.

Dan