Peter Mount wrote:
>
> I think most of us here are hot on quality. It's one of the reasons why I
> don't release code before I'm at least happy with what I've got is clean and
> easily maintainable.
>
> Here (MBC) I see several other analysts writing quick hacks that then become
> mission critical. These hacks then become illegible so when they break, I
> end up pulling my hair out because I can't read the code.
>
> Yet, they then moan at me because I take longer. However, I test everything
> first and I don't reinvent the wheel - if a routine or class is going to be
> useful, I make sure it's not dependent on too much, and put it in a library.
>
> I hate sloppy coding, but it's a sign of the times. Machines are more
> powerful, and storage is so cheap it's the easy way out not to optimise
> things.
>
> For example: How large is the average chess program now? Does anyone
> remember the Sinclair ZX81 and chess that ran in 1K of memory? Or how about
> a programming language on the Amiga whos compiler was only 1020 bytes long
> (Fast).
I used to run the 68000 Macro Assembler for my Amiga 1000 of off
floppy disk. There's nothing like a pre-emptively multi-tasking
operating system with a graphical user interface that runs nicely
in 256K of RAM ;-)
Mike Mascari
