HARRIS FLAME Re: SHORT vs. INT

[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.

On a slightly tangential, but relevant topic (because I'm very intolerant
of the intolerance shown on the net (:-):

The ability of the "average" programmer, just like the average in any other
human endeavour, is often barely capable of producing adequate specific
task/specific machine programs, let alone generalised task/generalised
machine programs - AND THIS IS THE WORLD WE HAVE TO LIVE IN AND INTERFACE
TO.

It is not reasonable to hold up an extreme, excellent piece of software and
say - "If Joe Foo can write this, why can't you?".  You can only expect the
maximum that a person is capable of, and motivated to, and help him produce
that best.  If he cannot absorb/use the information that is presented to
him, to its full extent, it need not be either his "fault" or yours!

To the people like Guy Harris who get totally p'ed off by the fallability of
others, and have the added problem of never being able to resist pointing
out the differences in their (perceived) intellects, think of something you
know you are not very good at (e.g.  carpentry, art, pure theoretical
physics etc.) and imagine your interaction with someone who IS good at
that, and is trying to get you to produce results.

Most people because of their inherant capabilities, must work at a level far
below excellence!  (At what level do I attempt to work? - the level that
**I** regard as excellent - i.e.  excellence as defined by me - accepted by
some, disagreed with by many!)

 (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) (:-) 

Smile everyone, I've now got off my high horse - slowly tho' cos my old bones
are creaking - follow-ups to net.philosophy!

Ray Dunn   ..philabs!micomvax!othervax!ray