Hi, =20 The way I think about it is somewhat like personal hygiene. Keeping myself= clean is no guarantee that I will not get sick but the opposite is almost = always true :-) I hate when I look at any piece of code that I have written and I cannot u= nderstand promptly what it does !! Gone was the time when the resources wer= e so constrained that the only way to get things working was by using "hard= core" algorithms. Even the 8 bitters are so much faster that clean code is = the way to go. As engineers our job is to get the job done with the least p= ossible cost and usually that means writing clean, simple and well document= ed code... =20 Best Regards, Alexandre Guimaraes =20 On 13/04/2014, at 19:36, Chris McSweeny wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:00 PM, smplx wrote: >=20 >> And what I'm saying is that code can be made far more convoluted in the >> name of maintainability (and portability) and thus actually harder to >> maintain. >>=20 >=20 > Clearly in that case it hasn't been made more maintainable - though I'd > love to see an example of what you mean, as in all cases I've seen > maintainable means less convoluted. >=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> There is no reason why readable code cannot be just as compact and just >>> as fast as spaghetti code. >>=20 >> Well actually, yes there is. As Colin has shown, he was able to generate >> more optimised code than the compiler by writing spaghetti code (sorry >> Colin). >>=20 >=20 > You're referring to the earlier example which I recoded with the same > functionality and efficiency, but with far better structure? >=20 > Chris > --=20 > http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .