Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!dcl-cs!gdt!exspes
From: exspes@bath.ac.uk (P E Smee)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: The *ART* of Computer Programming
Message-ID: <1990Mar2.095746.21311@bath.ac.uk>
Date: 2 Mar 90 09:57:46 GMT
References: <1990Feb26.234217.23251@aucs.uucp> <732@sppy00.UUCP> <25eb63c7.6a42@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> <12533@nigel.udel.EDU>
Organization: University of Bristol c/o University of Bath
Lines: 22

In article <12533@nigel.udel.EDU> new@udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>In article <25eb63c7.6a42@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) writes:
>>If a program is worth >writing it is worth writing well.  
>Have you never heard of a one-time program? Or were you not referring to
>this kind of program?     -- Darren

I used to believe in one-time programs, but over the years I've
discovered that if I write something, no matter how 'one-time', I will
end up reusing it eventually.  Sometimes simply as the base on which to
write a new one-time program which performs some similar task, but even
(or especially) then it is helpful if the original throwaway program
was written properly.

This is not to say that I never write hacked-together stuff, but I try
to restrict it to times where it is critical that something be done NOW
rather than right.  Even then, I try to be a bit neat, as it helps to
prevent careless programming mistakes which hurt even more at times
like that.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 Smee@bristol.ac.uk  -  ..!uunet!ukc!bsmail!smee  -  Tel +44 272 303132