Re: How do you read this code ?

[Adam Glauser <adamglauser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.