Thanks for those kind words, Jerry.
Charlie
On 01-16-2012 10:16 PM, Jerry wrote:
I can vouch for Charlies code because I still work on some that he
wrote over 13 years ago. Universe is much more forgiving on 'nix
systems. On Windows, not so much. Of course that may be because 'nix
systems are more forgiving than Windows. When I come across code such
as the one that started this thread, I usually figure it was done by
someone that knew they wouldn't have to work on the code again. It's
good to learn new and better ways to program but wisdom should tell
you whether or not it should be used. Most of us, on this list, have
been programming for several decades and know what we had to go
through to get to this point. If we want new programmers to jump on
board we need to remember what it took and give them a break. It's
nice to show off but does it do your company or clients any good if
others have to take days, even minutes, to figure out what you did.
Jerry
On 1/16/2012 6:17 PM, Charlie Noah wrote:
Hi George,
Are there any implementations now that don't support X += 1? Not that I
have a problem with X = X + 1 - works just fine and is very clear. I
usually try to code to the common denominator, within reason, of course.
Over my 34 years in the biz I've been through a lot of conversions of
one MV to another. The most dreaded part was finding and fixing things
that worked on the old system but not on the new. Universe is famous for
being very forgiving and figuring out what you really meant. Jbase not
so much. We spent a lot of time on issues like that.
Regards,
Charlie Noah
On 01-16-2012 12:53 PM, George Gallen wrote:
This is one of the reasons why I continue to x=x+1 instead of x++
Not all languages support the ++, but they all support x=x+1
George
-----Original Message-----
From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org
[mailto:u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony
Gravagno
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 1:50 PM
To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
Subject: Re: [U2] Brilliant? or not?
From: Charles_Shaffer
Aside from it not being readable, compacting C code
like that can reduce portability. Different compilers
may evaluate complex, compacted code differently.
Same thing has actually happened with BASIC code that's ported
from one platform to another.
Rule of thumb: Don't get cute. Spell out the code so that any
dumb compiler or programmer can read it.
On-topic: that makes my response to this thread, "not".
One of our colleagues from the mid 80's wrote code that was so
clean I liked to say we could eat off of it. I think he still
reads this forum: So to Mark Vander Veen, here we are over 20
years later and I Still appreciate your code. Now THAT is
Brilliant.
T
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
_______________________________________________
U2-Users mailing list
U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org
http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
