Home > Archive > Cobol > November 2004 > Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Infinite Loops and Explicit Exits
|
|
| Robert Wagner 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| On 4 Nov 2004 07:52:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <cp5ko0h5befh6q3bu9cit1u3i9gnuqm0f3@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Mr Wagner, I do not recall reading anything which would support this
>conclusion; please be so kind as to document your assertion.
"... and if there's a reader who looks at that and cannot almost
viscerally grasp what is going on then I'd be willing to wager said
reader has fewer than two year's worth of experience. This kind of
code is old enough to vote and then some... and there's a few reasons
why it has been in production that long. Sure, it may not gently
stroke one's delicate sense of aesthetics... but, for the most part,
it works."
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| In article <9milo0h9pdak4gju9ue396ndaq0re5hlku@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 4 Nov 2004 07:52:54 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>"... and if there's a reader who looks at that and cannot almost
>viscerally grasp what is going on then I'd be willing to wager said
>reader has fewer than two year's worth of experience. This kind of
>code is old enough to vote and then some... and there's a few reasons
>why it has been in production that long. Sure, it may not gently
>stroke one's delicate sense of aesthetics... but, for the most part,
>it works."
Mr Wagner, I am  ... you quoted me after I posted a sample of the
kind of code you say people are in denial of; this is, by my understanding
of the term, the exact opposite of a denial. Might you be so kind as to
expound on how an explicit admission and demonstration can become a
denial?
DD
| |
| Robert Wagner 2004-11-16, 6:44 pm |
| On 5 Nov 2004 05:13:25 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <9milo0h9pdak4gju9ue396ndaq0re5hlku@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>Mr Wagner, I am ... you quoted me after I posted a sample of the
>kind of code you say people are in denial of; this is, by my understanding
>of the term, the exact opposite of a denial. Might you be so kind as to
>expound on how an explicit admission and demonstration can become a
>denial?
Your posting praises its readibility and the fact that "it works", as
though other styles don't work. You deny the demo is Bad Code.
If it had been more complete, I would have rewritten it in Good Code.
|
|
|
|
|