Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site 3comvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!3comvax!mikes From: mikes@3comvax.UUCP (Mike Shannon) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: HARRIS FLAME Re: SHORT vs. INT Message-ID: <229@3comvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 17:52:33 EDT Article-I.D.: 3comvax.229 Posted: Wed Sep 25 17:52:33 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 04:43:44 EDT References: <1390@brl-tgr.ARPA> <2778@sun.uucp> <519@lasspvax.UUCP> <2803@sun.uucp> <699@othervax.UUCP> Organization: 3Com Corp; Mountain View, CA Lines: 24 Ray Dunn writes in the last noted reference: > 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. ........ (emphasis is mine) I believe that companies already pay the price for code which is not portable. When I design software, I try to keep things as simple as I can. In order to do this, I try to "abstract out" as many things as possible. This concern for abstraction pays off primarily in reduced design time and increased program reliability. The benefits in maintenance and portability (some programs are never ported) are secondary. I think that people who stress "portability" are actually attempting to say KISS. "Portability" is really not the issue. Abstraction (or "top-down design", or "stepwise refinement" or however you say it) is an inherently worthwhile design practice. -- Michael Shannon {ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes