Linux Programmer

[Carl Parrish]

My major problem with bloated code is when I have to go back and modify or
debug the code. There is simply too much going on there that I didn't put
there. When you don't know what's in your own code, you have a problem. I
don't believe that anyone can *afford* bloated code because the maintenance
costs are too high.

my .02 cents
Carl Parrish
Webmaster
ComputerPREP.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Trent Shipley <tshipley@symbio-tech.com>
To: <plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: Linux Programmer


>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us]On Behalf Of
> > sinck@corp.quepasa.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:44 AM
> > To: plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> > Subject: RE: Linux Programmer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > \_
> > \_ 1) I disagree with you on zero coding thing.
> > \_ You still code but instead of typing in the
> > \_ actual code you have to use point and click
> > \_ interface.  This is all nice and cool as long
> > \_ as you go back and optimize the generated
> > \_ code which no one does.  This is the exact way
> > \_ you end up with bunch of bloatware.
> > \_
> > \_
> > \_ How do you figure?
> > \_
> >
> > Generated code typically is very generalized and so prone to do lots
> > of things that it doesn't necessarily need to.
> >
>
> More important is the question of whether or not the bloat can be
tolerated.
> If you can live with it, then eliminating the bloat becomes an
unprofitable
> exercise in engineering.  Often the tradeoff between hardware and
> development costs favors buying brute-force capability.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plug-discuss mailing list  -  Plug-discuss@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss