Cameron Laird wrote:
> In fact, a correct computer program often
> has over half its lines devoted to accomo-
> dating error.
Oh sh*t. Yet another quantifiable measurement I suspect my programs wouldn't
hold up to. If it comes to 49% I'm SOL. God forbid it should be 48% or even
(gasp) 37.5%.
I will confess here and now that I wrote programs for over 10 years that
included no exception handling (well, an occasional setjmp/longjmp back in
the "dark ages"). I am SO ashamed. Will the emotional agony never end? Even
worse, I still write the occasional proceedural program, rather than
approach it object-oriented. *SOB*
They say confession is good for the soul, but I know in my heart I have
sinned and will be condemmed to hell where I will be forced to write an
X-Windows server using Apple ][ Basic and 6502 assembly for all eternity
(cause we all know that is how long it will take to get running right).
PRINT D$"OPEN FILE"
....(I think that is right.)
> In fact, a correct computer program often
> has over half its lines devoted to accomo-
> dating error.
Oh sh*t. Yet another quantifiable measurement I suspect my programs wouldn't
hold up to. If it comes to 49% I'm SOL. God forbid it should be 48% or even
(gasp) 37.5%.
I will confess here and now that I wrote programs for over 10 years that
included no exception handling (well, an occasional setjmp/longjmp back in
the "dark ages"). I am SO ashamed. Will the emotional agony never end? Even
worse, I still write the occasional proceedural program, rather than
approach it object-oriented. *SOB*
They say confession is good for the soul, but I know in my heart I have
sinned and will be condemmed to hell where I will be forced to write an
X-Windows server using Apple ][ Basic and 6502 assembly for all eternity
(cause we all know that is how long it will take to get running right).
PRINT D$"OPEN FILE"
....(I think that is right.)