throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (09/23/85)
> It is intersting to note in the discussions re short, longs etc. that > portability seems to be regarded as a major reason-d'etre for much > coding activity. > > All very well if portability can become ingrained in our way of thinking > just as block-structuring has now become (to some), but it should be noted > that in this big bad commercial world we (some of us) live in, very few > software projects can afford to schedule "extra" time for designing in, and > testing, the portability of code. Good point. But it is worth noting that almost all the things that enhance portability also enhance maintainability. Thus, the arguments about "you should use short/long/whatever in way x because it will help you in porting" are alwo valid when cast as "you should use short/long/whatever in way x because - it will help you when the compiler changes it's mind about something you took for granted - you will be able to change *your* mind about representations later - etc. etc. So, even though many folks tend to focus on porting as the reason to go for data-hiding, modularity, abstraction, and so on, these same things are important even when the code is *never* to be ported, simply because of improved maintainability. Sadly, this is easy to overlook, since it it trades some effort *now* for more effort *later*. Many end up going for the quick fix, and pay heavily for it when the bill comes due. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw