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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: ell@access.digex.net (Ell) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/05 Message-ID: <35f69071.94576764@news.erols.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388035174 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6shbca$66c$1@news.indigo.ie> <6shhq7$lut$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sjbso$1lk$2@news.indigo.ie> <6sjijg$36r$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skhcm$1dr$2@news.indigo.ie> <6skqf3$9g0$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6smmhv$1kp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6smsi3$n8i$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35EEBA15.30C3CC76@tisny.com> <6sn2lv$t6m$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35EEF0D1.939F1907@tisny.com> <6sp902$buj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sph1s$or0$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F0484A.2108A9F@tisny.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com X-Trace: winter.news.erols.com 904959848 19460 207.172.54.27 (5 Sep 1998 01:44:08 GMT) Organization: Universe Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: ell@access.digex.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Mike Spille wrote: >Robert Martin wrote: >> >> [code elided] >> Perhaps you think this is cumbersome. I don't. Cumbersome is a rather >> subjective term. On our teams if you were out voted you'd have to change it. All code is subject to review. In other words what is cumbersome can generally be agreed upon by the majority, or plurality of any mixed skill team of professional programmers. Spille wrote: >> >In fact, I feel that the multiple-return structure is more in line with the >> >"structured" organization of programs. >> You are free to feel that way, but the strict definition of SP does not >> support your "feeling". There is absolutely nothing to support your assertion, so it can not be absolutely anything other than unadulterated "feeling" on your part. Where oh where oh where is this "strict definition of SP"? You are making a fundamental assertion here, and any sane academic in the world would say that the burden of proof that se/se is a key defining criterion of SP is clearly upon you. For shame Robert Martin, for shame! [And given the overwhelming pro-RCM, pro-craftite makeup of the moderators for the proposed comp.object.moderated group, they would suppress any questioning of your blatantly intellectually dishonest assertions. You could just slide by slippery as a snake.] [And what makes this even more bogus, and outrageous is that these moderators have been elected for life. There is no provision at all for periodic elections.] Elliott