HARRIS FLAME Re: SHORT vs. INT

[Bill Crews]

> >From: ray at othervax.UUCP (Raymond D. Dunn)
> >
> >It is intersting to note in the discussions re short, longs etc. that
> >portability seems to be regarded as a major reason-d'etre for much
> >coding activity.
> >
> >All very well if portability can become ingrained in our way of thinking
> >just as block-structuring has now become (to some), but it should be noted
> >that in this big bad commercial world we (some of us) live in, very few
> >software projects can afford to schedule "extra" time for designing in, and
> >testing, the portability of code.  Yes, in the long run, it is maybe
> >worthwhile, but often it falls into the same category as generalising your
> >code as opposed to making it specific - a good thing to do, but often
> >commercially/practically unjustified.
> 
> Astounding! I guess you have a right to your opinion, what company do
> you work for and exactly what processor is your code tied to so I know
> exactly when to sell short on your stock? DEC-20? IBM7094? Z80? TIMEX/1000?
> DEC-10? 8008? PDP-8? DG/NOVA? SDS(XDS)? need I go on....
> 
> 	-Barry Shein, Boston University

Once again, another case of a person assuming that everyone's circumstances
are the same as his.  Some assumptions hurt no one but the assumer until
unjustified flames start crossing the net.  I am *certainly* not going to
take up the case for nonportable coding, but I will *sure* argue that the
degree to which portability is a factor in a given development effort is
a decision for the development team, not one for Barry Shein, way over there
in Boston!
-- 
  /  \    Bill Crews
 ( bc )   Cyb Systems, Inc
  \__/    Austin, Texas

[ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucbvax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc