🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 23:22:42 -0600, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2/23/2018 4:15 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:55:33 -0800, hancock4 wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 8:03:12 PM UTC-5, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> And, of course, after slaving over it for hours, a co worker walking by
>>>>> will spot it instantly.
>>>> 
>>>> Oh yes, so true!  Been there, done that on both sides many times (helped
>>>> someone passing by their desk, and was helped by someone passing by me.)
>>>> 
>>>> Amazing how much a fresh pair of eyes can see.
>>> 
>>> Best one was passing someone on the stairs when I was a graduate student.
>>> He was porting a particular program to thePDP-8, and mentioned that it
>>> was all fine, except that one component misbehaved in a particular way
>>> after a previous error message had been issued.
>>> 
>>> I said "Ah, you're overwriting the third word up in (mumble) data
>>> structure at the base of the stack". And so it was.
>>> 
>> 
>> If you have *not* read "Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal", you really 
>> need to read it.
>> 
>> "Any Real Programmer will tell you that all the Structured Coding in the 
>> world won't help you solve a problem like that -- it takes actual talent."
>> 
>> http://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers
> 
> Structured programming is not about "solving problems", it is about
> avoiding creating unnecessary ones.  Anybody who has tried to figure
> out what is going on in somebody else long retired's uncommenented
> spaghetti APL (you think spaghetti BASIC is bad, you ain't seen
> _nothin_ yet) instantly develops a huge appreciation for structured
> programming.
> 

Unfortunately, good structured programming takes WORK. What gave it a bad
name were the "programmers" who thought that pulling arbitrary groups of
statements into subroutines was all that was necessary to produce good
code.

-- 
Pete