From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Cross Message-Id: <200111111730.MAA08518@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?) In-Reply-To: <200111111120.LAA10681@localhost.localdomain> References: <200111110334.WAA06281@augusta.math.psu.edu> Cc: Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:30:03 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1e453e04-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article <200111111120.LAA10681@localhost.localdomain> you write: >...which you weren't doing. On a more general note, "faster compiler" >fits in with "faster processor", "bigger disk" and "more memory" as >excuses for "can't be bothered to design properly." Of course, "compiler >generates faster/smaller code" also supports it. True. Hence the paradoxical result that our code wasn't really any better for the pain of having to work that way. You'd think that since we had to do all this garbage to get it to build correctly, people would have invested more time in getting things right the first time. But they didn't. I think that's a general result of people `growing up' in environments where development revolves around a edit/compile/test/repeat cycle, but leaving those environments before they've fully matured. (Sorry for the age/maturity metaphor.) While that model is extremely powerful in the hands of those with some experience and education in its proper use, in the wrong hands, it can be disasterous, leading to the, ``just hack it until it works'' syndrome. Or maybe the problem was that at said company, doing a build was a good excuse for going off and doing something else for 45 minutes.... - Dan C.