Re: another bizarre architecture

In article <bg64s295gsdagcf66pmb3go7e1480c9rrj@xxxxxxx>, John Larkin
says...
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 10:49:09 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:04:14 -0800) it happened John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<oje2s2hjisrbo8soro56n0bqbp1p8lp15h@xxxxxxx>:

And yes, I'd expect a printf() to use that many bytes - printf() is a
freakin' monstrosity in any case. What does puts() compile to?

It is extremely simple.
http://www.koders.com/c/fid61148695142D20F84C4E83E059EEED5677E7CD79.aspx


Monkeys with typewriters. Most of the functions say nothing about what
they do, and many are effectively or entirely comment-free.

No, you have to be able to read 'C'!!!!!!

To even tell what the intent of a 100-line function is? The fact that
the comments are so few, and generally misspelled, suggest that what's
going on here is beyond simple inarticulateness.

I use C, it's now probably my 'mother tongue' for programming and I
have to agree with John on this. The comments are too sparse and
worse in the one other function I looked at (to see if more complex
functions were done better), the file header comment was completely
wrong. It's the sort of file where if you already know what's
happening and what it's supposed to do you can follow it but if you
are new to it or have been away for a long enough period to have
forgotten then you will be in for a hard time. The functions assume a
lot of knowledge that is not in the files and there are no pointers
external references containing the missing information.

Robert


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages
Loading