Xref: utzoo comp.sw.components:367 comp.software-eng:2227
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!richsun!cweir
From: cweir@richsun.UUCP (Charles Weir)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Schedule and budget are secondary
Keywords: parameter checking
Message-ID: <626@richsun.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 89 16:34:48 GMT
References: <16168@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <6693@hubcap.clemson.edu> <3807@rtech.rtech.com> <16202@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <3829@rtech.rtech.com> <1989Oct18.201225.3330@world.std.com>
Reply-To: cweir%richsun.UUCP@uunet.uu.net (Charles Weir)
Organization: RICH Inc. , Franklin Park,IL
Lines: 26

In article <1989Oct18.201225.3330@world.std.com> madd@world.UUCP (jim frost) writes:
>>>You have to make the software a little hardier than it should need to be
>>>in order to survive what it will be put through.
>[...]
>>Well your main point remains valid, i.e. that one needs to think about 
>>future maintenance/enhancement when coding something.
>
>Yes; the technique I've used is to error-check arguments everywhere
>that performance isn't ABSOLUTELY necessary, even in distributed code.
>
>This costs some performance 

If performance is important, then make it an option (Compile option in C, I don't know in other languages):

#if defined (CHECK)...
[check all parameters]
#endif

That isn't quite as convenient as leaving the checks in permanently, but it allows one to use the technique in virtually ALL code.

It's funny how little public domain code does this...


-- 
Charles Weir, Rich Inc, Franklin Park, IL 60131
Email: cweir@richsun.uucp  uunet!richsun!cweir