On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Gabe Black <[email protected]> wrote:
> A hack that works is not necessarily any better than code that doesn't > work because it will have to be maintained and worked with/around for a > long time. I strongly disagree. There's a huge difference between "works" and "doesn't work", because those map directly to "useful" and "not useful". Obviously "maintainable" is also hugely important, but if we think that "maintainable" is more important than "works", we should just give up now. A piece of code that does nothing is supremely maintainable, and its only flaw is that it's not useful, so that's the destination you're headed for if you prize maintainability over utility. Obviously we really want both, but let's keep our priorities straight. Steve _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list [email protected] http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
