HARRIS FLAME Re: SHORT vs. INT

[Mike Shannon]

Ray Dunn writes in the last noted reference:
> 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.  ........
	(emphasis is mine)

I believe that companies already pay the price for code which is not portable.
When I design software, I try to keep things as simple as I can.  In order to
do this, I try to "abstract out" as many things as possible.
	This concern for abstraction pays off primarily in reduced design
time and increased program reliability.  The benefits in maintenance and
portability (some programs are never ported) are secondary.
	I think that people who stress "portability" are actually attempting
to say KISS.  "Portability" is really not the issue.  Abstraction (or "top-down
design", or "stepwise refinement" or however you say it) is an inherently
worthwhile design practice.
-- 
			Michael Shannon {ihnp4,hplabs}!oliveb!3comvax!mikes