On Sun, 13 Apr 2014, Chris McSweeny wrote: > On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:00 PM, smplx wrote: > >> 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. >> > > 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. OK here's a good one: conditional compilation and pre-processor macros.=20 Actually intended to help make maintainance easier because it allows you=20 to hide complexity and tie things together such that a change in one place= =20 will automatically produce all the necessary changes everywhere else. With this in mind try taking a program that was built using libpng 1.2=20 then try building it with libpng 1.5. But please don't give up at the=20 compiler error messages - actually try to convert your well written easily= =20 maintainable program so that it does manage to use libpng 1.5. Been there, done that, nightmare! > >> >> >> There is no reason why readable code cannot be just as compact and just >>> as fast as spaghetti code. >> >> 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). >> > > You're referring to the earlier example which I recoded with the same > functionality and efficiency, but with far better structure? Yes that's the one :-) Ok, I've now posted an example of use of a goto which made code clearer=20 (well it's clearer to me and as I'm the one that has to live with it :-)) Friendly Regards Sergio Masci --=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 .