Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@athos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Basics of Program Design
Message-ID: <Jul.25.03.53.41.1988.20147@athos.rutgers.edu>
Date: 25 Jul 88 07:53:41 GMT
References: <901@td2cad.intel.com> <3061@rpp386.UUCP> <395@proxftl.UUCP> <536@proxftl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 71
To: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article <536@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
]...
] Where are the products you have produced?  How might I evaluate
] what you have done?  As for me, you can find my code in any
] Proximity spelling checker (other than the ones we put into
] typewriters). 

Oh?  Source comes with these?  Or are we to evaluate you esteemed programming
ability purely on the binaries of a sophmore project that you have managed
to sell to people who can't use a dictionary?  Perhaps we should have
some sort of programming duel?

] As for you abilities, the only evidence I have of them is that
] you seem to believe that a recursive strlen is a good thing in
] C.  And that your arguments for this include insults and
] vagueness.

You might recall that this whole thing began with someone (not me) insulting
a student for writing a perfectly good recursive strlen function.

] You are quite right.  It does have to be taken in context.  And
] the context, laboriously and frequently repeated by me, is that
] programming is a utilitarian art.  The quality of an algorithm
] has to be judged by the context.  You may interpret my "do the
] best job you can" as vaguely as you wish; however, the rest of
] us, who can read and understand what was read, will interpret it
] as it was intended.

Certainly this is vaguer than anything I have ever come up with.
Truly a retreat to a complete non-position.

] : < till you use said strlen on a machine with a few K of available
] : < stack space and you try a strlen on a long string.  Boom.
] :
] : Boom?  I thought the IBM-PC only did that when you messed around with
] : the graphics card.
] 
] A misinterpretation on your part; no doubt everyone else who read
] the posting recognized this as idiom for a system crash.  And I'm

A system crash from a stack overflow?  What kind of junk are you running
on?

] not talking about the IBM-PC, though I suppose that in your
] infinite ignorance you don't know of the many other useful
] machines that come with a limited amount of memory.

I certainly NEVER said the IBM-PC was a useful machine.  For the same
memory, a PDP-11/45 would be my choice ANY DAY.  Note that both the 11/45
and the Intel 8008 were introduced in 1972.

] : < I have had enough of this discussion.  I am not going to waste
] : < further time with someone whose position is so far removed from
] : < mine that he believes that, in C, a recursive strlen is as good
] : < as a nonrecursive one.
] :
] : This is hardly my position -- my position is that I believe that for
] : a student compiler project (particularly in the early stages of
] : development), a recursive strlen is BETTER than a nonrecursive one,
] : regardless of the programming language being used.
] 
] Again, you didn't read. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!

So?  Does the ``fact'' that you have ``had enough'' give you some magical
right to mis-state my position?

] My judgement of you is ...

A matter too trivial to bother replying to.

--- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)