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: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful?
Date: 1998/08/16
Message-ID: <dewar.903279793@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 381668172
References: <dewar.902415458@merv>
 <6qg3on$kjq$2@reader1.reader.news.ozemail.net> <dewar.902579285@merv>
 <6qrdn4$4ac@drn.newsguy.com> <EACHUS.98Aug12165625@spectre.mitre.org>
 <gwinn-1208982148170001@d153.dial-7.cmb.ma.ultra.net> <dewar.903074654@merv>
 <35d46b70.92714516@news.mindspring.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 903279902 20916 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bob Munck says

<<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?
>>

Really it depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to 
write highly reliable code, then it is often the case that "not clean"
correlates with unreliable. After all there is a reason why typical
certification standards for safety critical code consider not only the
correctness of the code itself, but also the process by which the
code is created.