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