Re: GO TO HELL.

On 22 May, 09:56, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
wrote:
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmpub...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in messagenews:08m453p0
5hcen0760fg3213gmc8crh2k0u@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> I don't think you have any right to claim higher moral ground just because
> your names were "meaningful", Clark.
>
> There is very possibly a shop standard that says names MUST be of the form
at
> shown. If that's true, then the names are NOT cryptic.
>
> In fact, it really doesn't matter what you call the "points"; functionally
> they are simply places where control can be switched. Within the context o
f
> such a program the entrances and possible exits are all that matters (I ha
ve
> maintained a few of these in my time) and meaningful destination names can
> actually be confusing. (You think it's going to a particular process but i
t
> gets switched from somewhere else before it can. I stand by the railway
> analogy. ) You could rename every label as L1, L2, L3 etc and it still
> wouldn't make the program any more or less intelligible. A program
> containing 134 ALTER statements and 326 GO TO statements, won't be improve
d
> by changing the labels on the switching points.
>
> If you would seriously fire people over this code, then I sincerely hope y
ou
> never get that opportunity. :-)
>
>
> 
>
> Sure, we've all learned a thing or two since the 60s... :-)
>
> However, a real programmer will fix any code that is broken, without
> requiring heads to roll, without making judgements on it, just because it 
is
> program code, and that's what we do.
>
> Pete.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought that you didn't maintain code but re-wrote it?

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1179859155.775606.250120@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 May, 09:56, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote: 
>
> I thought that you didn't maintain code but re-wrote it?
>

Shows how making assumptions can be error prone. (You know what "Thought"
thought... :-))

For several decades I made a living maintaining code.  Mostly other people's
but sometimes my own as well.

These days I don't do that. But that doesn't mean I CAN'T do it; I'm a
programmer (remember, it is just one of the hats I wear).

It is apparent to me from your last statement above that you have no idea
what I do nowadays, when wearing my programming hat.

(I do not re-write code, except under very exceptional circumstances, and I
don't normally maintain code (in the sense that people here maintain COBOL
code)...I've given up trying to explain what I actually DO do in this forum
because it simply ends up with misconceptions like the one you have
demonstrated above.  This is not a criticism, Alistair. I understand why you
don't understand :-). Sometimes trying to get a new idea past existing
preconceptions is like trying to explain the colour red to a blind man. I
know that sounds condescending and I'm sorry about that, (no disrespect is
intended), but I'm just really tired of having to argue something as if I
cared whether people do it or not. I don't. I've tried to simplfy some quite
complex concepts because I thought people might be interested in not having
to maintain code; I was wrong. They love doing it :-))

Fortunately, it doesn't matter.

My systems get developed (and enhanced) without your approval, or lack of it
:-)

Pete.

On 23 May 2007 06:49:49 -0700, Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Probably true. I have attempted Java but find it obfuscatory and full
>of pit-falls to dinosaurs like me.

All library languages can be like obfuscate.   And one of the stated
advantages of OO, is that it hides code (which is by definition,
obfuscate).

But I write lots of CoBOL without knowing what exactly the compiler
does with my code - but as long as I know and trust the end result,
that works fine.

"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1179928188.956912.293860@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 May, 01:16, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@removethis.enternet.co.nz>
> wrote: 
> 
>
> Probably true. I have attempted Java but find it obfuscatory and full
> of pit-falls to dinosaurs like me.
> 
>
> Or perhaps to a colour-blind man. Such as myself. No offense taken.
> I'd use the wavelength concept to explain it. Or is it just a
> particle?
>
Not waving...drowning... :-)

Pete.

[url]http://Katie-Holmes-touching-her-boobs.info/WindowsMediaPlayer.php?movie=1673286[/
url]