×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Joe Pluta wrote:
I noticed it right away because I've got an old school upbringing, heavy
on assembly language and boolean logic
... and you know that
> TTA9CD can neverbe both 002 and 003, so one of the NE tests will fail.
As you pointed out, this is an example of "self-documenting" code which
is not self documenting at all. FWIW, I like Charles' idea of putting
this sort of test in a procedure.
That sort of stuff should still
be mandatory, though, because no matter what tools you use, eventually
you have to write business logic, and when you boil it down to its
lowest level, *all* computing is ON and OFF. If you don't understand
that level of code, you'll eventually get bitten by it.
I can't agree more. I've heard some rumblings that some diploma/degree
programs don't even require _one_ course on assembly any more! I hope
that those that don't are few and far between, but lack of appreciation
for at least passing knowledge these seems to be creeping in to the
programming community in general, perhaps spurred by the increased use
of VMs and interpreted languages. There are lots of great things to be
said for not _needing_ to know about hardware on a day-to-day basis, but
as a general trend it is worrying.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
