|
 |
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:33:36 -0500, Christopher James Huff wrote:
>In article <n8ag309hemfhpmj8jnt5j5s3k8gr66rm62@4ax.com>,
> Andreas Kaiser <aka### [at] nurfuerspam de> wrote:
>
>> This might be a 'learning' problem if you aren't aware of the
>> operators 'hidden' complexity.
>
>Only if the code is poorly designed. You shouldn't have to care about
>the hidden complexity. It doesn't matter one bit how the = operator
>copies a string, only that it does so.
This was meant from a newbie's point of view where 'a *= b' might
appear to be faster than a call to 'MyMatrixMultiplyMatrixEq(a, b)'.
>> >So do functions.
>>
>> Yes, same problem here. There's no correlation between length of
>> function name and complexity.
Oh, I see, I forgot the smiley.
Please read it as "... 'problem' ...".
>It's not a problem. It's a feature. Code written without functions is
>called spaghetti code, it ain't pretty and it is very inefficient and
>unmaintainable. Or should functions that do more have longer names?
This is what I wanted to point out.
> How long should POV-Ray's main() function be?
As short as possible.
--
Andreas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
