> You're just asserting this again. The fact that people get paid for
> making pigs dance and not primarily for making their code readable
> suggests that the purpose of the exercise is to make the computer
> do stuff, despite your assertion to the contrary.
I get paid by the ISC to write code that is readable and can be
understood. That's what a reference implementation is. I don't
actually claim to have succeeded at this, but I've done my best, and
readability is indeed one of the primary goals of my code. Another
is the codification of knowledge about the various little edge cases
in the DHCP protocol - if you look through my code, you'll find a
great deal of code and written comments that document such things.
Your disdain for the fruit of your labor is depressing, sir. I
encourage you to think of it more highly.
_MelloN_
- How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Anonymous
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Chuck Robey
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Carl Ellison
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? EKR
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Carl Ellison
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? EKR
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer... Carl Ellison
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer... Ted Lemon
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer... John Gilmore
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? David Honig
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? EKR
- procedural vs. declarative speech (w... David Honig
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer... Ben Laurie
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Bill Sommerfeld
- OT: coding as speech (was: Re: How to donate ... sinster
- Re: How to donate a clue to a lawyer? Bill Frantz
