>> (Notice that guy who said he couldn't just add a new integer field to a 
>> data structure because it would break a few thousand other functions? 
>> Does that sound like good abstraction you to?)
> 
>   That kind of code is crap.
> 
>   I have been programming for well over a decade on an "unsafe" language,
> and I have never wrote a program which would break if you add something
> to a class or struct.

That one did kind of strike me as "this can't be good".

Still, C is a language where, if you so desire, you can make your code 
depend on the exact size of a struct, the endianness of machine words, 
and all kinds of other things to make your code extra fragile. I suppose 
some people would consider this a "feature"...

>   I have to admit, though, that not all programs I have ever written would
> fully support 64-bit architectures. By this I don't mean they would not
> compile as a 64-bit executable or that they would crash when compiled as
> such and run. I mean that they would not necessarily fully utilize the
> increased address space.

Not taking advantage of new features is to be expected; breaking because 
of them even if you aren't using them seems to be like poor design. 
Still, heaps and heaps of C programs seemed to not like being recompiled 
that way...

Post a reply to this message