Subject:
|
Re: NQC listing mnemonics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Dec 1999 20:36:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2095 times
|
| |
| |
In article
<Pine.BSF.4.10.9912041445480.12784-100000@brunte.ispra.webweaving.org>,
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org> wrote:
> I second this. I look at the listing a lot; esp. when optimizing. But
> actually would feel quite happy with the newer format. Of course it
> would be nice to just have a flag; and quite cheap./
IMHO, there are some cases where extra features are actually cost
justified, but in many cases they are added because the short term cost is
deceptively low. Even something as simple as an extra command line switch
carries with it a certain burden of documentation, support, testing, and
maintenance. None of these individual costs are huge, but if features are
added too hastily, the resulting software can become a beast to maintain.
Overall, this makes me a little reluctant to add features until it becomes
clear that their value outweighs the cost.
For something like the mnemonics, I'd really like to pick one. Just
because it may be easy to implement both, in the long run a single set of
mnemonics may be very beneficial and make it easier for people to discuss
bytecodes, etc. This is a case where I believe that either decision (old
or new) is better than not making the decision (and perpetuating both
sets).
Dave Baum
--
reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC listing mnemonics
|
| I second this. I look at the listing a lot; esp. when optimizing. But actually would feel quite happy with the newer format. Of course it would be nice to just have a flag; and quite cheap./ creature feep. Dw (...) (25 years ago, 4-Dec-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|