rbj@icst-cmr (Root Boy Jim) (05/16/86)
> All too often, one sees programmers writing code before > a proper job of analysis and design has been done. I > also believe that is partly because semi-running code > makes it appear as though progress has been made, > while a complete design doesn't convey the same impression. Sorry, Doug, I can't let that one go by. Me neither. It has also been said that programs should be written twice: once to find out what the specs are, then that program should be thrown away and the job done right. TPC seems to have followed that philosophy, as System V looks nothing at all like UNIX :-) (Root Boy) Jim Cottrell <rbj@cmr> "One man gathers what another man spills"
sam@delftcc.UUCP (Sam Kendall) (05/28/86)
In article <908@brl-smoke.ARPA>, rbj%icst-cmr@smoke.UUCP (Jim Cottrell) writes: > It has also been said that programs should be written twice: > once to find out what the specs are, then that program should be thrown > away and the job done right. Yeah, Donald Knuth said (in _The Art of Computer Programming_, I think) that the best programs he ever saw were written twice, with the source being accidentally lost in between. I don't know if he was the first to say this, but he said it quite a while ago. A peripherally related story: a (former) prof of mine (Ugo Gagliardi of GSG, Inc. and Harvard University) said that he saw a PBX software system that had been designed with incredible elegance. When he asked the designers how the went about it, they said, "Well, the hardware wasn't available for several months, so all we could do was sit around and think about the design." I've moved this discussion, small as it is, to net.lang, since it is unrelated to C. ---- Sam Kendall { ihnp4 | seismo!cmcl2 }!delftcc!sam Delft Consulting Corp. ARPA: delftcc!sam@NYU.ARPA