Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site othervax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!bbnccv!bbncca!linus!philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray From: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: HARRIS FLAME Re: SHORT vs. INT Message-ID: <699@othervax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 12:00:32 EDT Article-I.D.: othervax.699 Posted: Wed Sep 18 12:00:32 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 05:00:00 EDT References: <1390@brl-tgr.ARPA> <2778@sun.uucp> <519@lasspvax.UUCP> <2803@sun.uucp> Reply-To: ray@othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn) Organization: Philips Information Systems - St. Laurent P.Q., Canada Lines: 46 Summary: Practicallity and Tolerance! It is intersting to note in the discussions re short, longs etc. that portability seems to be regarded as a major reason-d'etre for much coding activity. All very well if portability can become ingrained in our way of thinking just as block-structuring has now become (to some), but it should be noted that in this big bad commercial world we (some of us) live in, very few software projects can afford to schedule "extra" time for designing in, and testing, the portability of code. Yes, in the long run, it is maybe worthwhile, but often it falls into the same category as generalising your code as opposed to making it specific - a good thing to do, but often commercially/practically unjustified. On a slightly tangential, but relevant topic (because I'm very intolerant of the intolerance shown on the net (:-): The ability of the "average" programmer, just like the average in any other human endeavour, is often barely capable of producing adequate specific task/specific machine programs, let alone generalised task/generalised machine programs - AND THIS IS THE WORLD WE HAVE TO LIVE IN AND INTERFACE TO. It is not reasonable to hold up an extreme, excellent piece of software and say - "If Joe Foo can write this, why can't you?". You can only expect the maximum that a person is capable of, and motivated to, and help him produce that best. If he cannot absorb/use the information that is presented to him, to its full extent, it need not be either his "fault" or yours! To the people like Guy Harris who get totally p'ed off by the fallability of others, and have the added problem of never being able to resist pointing out the differences in their (perceived) intellects, think of something you know you are not very good at (e.g. carpentry, art, pure theoretical physics etc.) and imagine your interaction with someone who IS good at that, and is trying to get you to produce results. Most people because of their inherant capabilities, must work at a level far below excellence! (At what level do I attempt to work? - the level that **I** regard as excellent - i.e. excellence as defined by me - accepted by some, disagreed with by many!) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) Smile everyone, I've now got off my high horse - slowly tho' cos my old bones are creaking - follow-ups to net.philosophy! Ray Dunn ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray