RE: Benefits of Sub-procedures

Buck:

> Do they write sub-programs to do one thing, and one thing 
> well? Do their applications written this way provide 
> acceptable performance and maintainability? Do they write 
> sub-procedures to do one thing and one thing well? Do their 
> applications written this way provide acceptable performance 
> and maintainability?
> 
> If the answers to all of the above are yes, then the question 
> makes perfect sense.  They're already writing very modular, 
> re-usable code that is easy to maintain and runs acceptably.  
> What benefits do they accrue from sub-procedures? (they have 
> already brushed aside use in an expressions.)

Let's not forget that the "sub-programs" which perform acceptably today
for occasional interactive use are often the buggers that chew up our
day-end window when called repeatedly in large batch runs!

My point is that a good programmer should be looking forward a little
ways at anticipated uses, and not just at the immediate problem at hand.

Of course, I know I'm preaching to the choir in your case. My comments
are not directed at you, but at the group in general.

Regards,

John Taylor