Vitaliy wrote:
> The "macho programmers" ("real men program in assembler, OOP is for 
> wussies", etc) will surely disagree.
Personally, I find both ends of the spectrum above less than readable 
for maintenance purposes.

With assembly, it is quite difficult to encode enough hints into the 
actual code so that you can understand what is going on - especially if 
you are operating without useful comments.   That is, the coding is so 
close to the machine level that you almost have to think in assembler to 
make any sense out of it.  Most of your maintenance is looking at the 
code and determining how it accomplishes (or not) what the comment says.

With what some people think OOP should be, it's almost as difficult.   
Mainly because often you have to figure out the whole inheritance tree 
to figure out what the (@#*$ is going on. 

Give me a well written chunk of code in a procedural language such as C 
(or basic, or perl, or php for that matter) and I'm happy.

-forrest

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist