From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: munck@Mill-Creek-Systems.com (Bob Munck) Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful? Date: 1998/08/14 Message-ID: <35d46b70.92714516@news.mindspring.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 381164111 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6qg3on$kjq$2@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> <6qrdn4$4ac@drn.newsguy.com> Organization: MindSpring Enterprises X-Server-Date: 14 Aug 1998 17:05:40 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-14T17:05:40+00:00 List-Id: On 14 Aug 1998 02:06:58 -0400, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >It was instead about the difference in styles between do-it-right-first-time >and hack-around-and-make-it-right-later. I've noticed recently that I often use a third style: 1. Find something on the Net or elsewhere that approximates the function to be implemented (sometimes not very closely); 2. Set up an execution/testing structure that lets me run the found program in the environment of the desired program; 3. Make small changes one at a time, testing after each, until the program does the desired functions. Note that I always have either a working program or a program that was broken by the change I just made. This approach works, and seems to be as fast or faster than programming from scratch, but I worry that the result isn't as "clean" as it could be. It is often cleaner than the original program as written by someone else, but not as clean as I would have written it entirely. These are NOT large programs, but may run a thousand LoC or so. Anyone have any opinions on this approach? Does anyone else find themself working this way? Bob Munck Haymarket, VA