Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!zardoz.cpd.com!dhw68k!felix!asylvain From: asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Eliminating pointers does not help the programmer Message-ID: <152494@felix.UUCP> Date: 20 Oct 90 00:41:56 GMT References: <10635:Oct1213:40:5990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <65696@lanl.gov> Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP Reply-To: asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain) Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA Lines: 28 I shouldn't do this, but my wife'll tell you I never do what I should ... In article <65696@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: [... everythang I ain't innerested in 'sbeen nuked] > But, at least in my experience, pointers are associated > with more than their fair share of hard to find errors. Why shouldn't > this experience be a valid point of discussion? How about the time > it takes to read and understand code - is not this also a topic we may > discuss? YES!! This *is* a topic to discuss! I have another posting (which is why I shouldn't do this, I'm being redundant) which emphasizes this very point. The time to read and understand code is much more important than the micro- seconds some cryptic implementation may save. The fellow with the Hermes language stated it best ... get it correct first, then worry about efficiency. Get it correct in a readable fashion! If it's correct and unreadable, it can not be improved. If it's incorrect and at least readable, someone can fix it quickly. If it's incorrect, unreadable, but *fast*, it's worthless. (I'm *so* glad the subject of this thread has changed! ;-) -- =============Opinions are Mine, typos belong to /bin/ucb/vi============= "We're sorry, but the reality you have dialed is no | Alvin longer in service. Please check the value of pi, | "the Chipmunk" or pray to your local deity for assistance." | Sylvain = = = = = = =All this time I thought it was spelled "diety"= = = = = = =