Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 18:07:27 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <82931061.749609299.683575.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
References: <pan$96411$d204da43$cc34bb91$1fe98651@linux.rocks>
 <5mqdnZuGq4lgwm_7nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vcub5c$36h63$1@dont-email.me>
 <36KdnVlGJu9VLW77nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <971448126.749088380.092448.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
 <vd5195$edas$1@dont-email.me>
 <59CJO.19674$MoU3.15170@fx36.iad>
 <vd6vto$r0so$1@dont-email.me>
 <iJEJO.198176$kxD8.81657@fx11.iad>
 <3hOdnWpQ649QMGr7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vd8doi$15q07$1@dont-email.me>
 <vd8eg7$15v1j$2@dont-email.me>
 <cxicnVzg_cn_eGX7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <vdapbn$1kp35$5@dont-email.me>
 <xD2dnSerYr-8kmf7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <llv25bFa6uvU2@mid.individual.net>
 <n-ednbNVDrThwWf7nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <1114392917.749421134.280786.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
 <WHudncjyj7eEHGb7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lm2u9aFs3voU6@mid.individual.net>
 <vdj5v7$35p9c$19@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 03:07:27 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9dc4d0c0396760b7d159114bcec7e30";
	logging-data="3627933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Hhm2AyXIHrg1/GHIc4cxH"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.3.1 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:pqAL/gUiyHPrUET2mGkq+7mYgH0=
	sha1:nr4T5HwbbSXZ0iXVb5B579Qb614=
Bytes: 3528

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 01/10/2024 19:44, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 00:56:56 -0400, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> 
>>> Technically, I agree. However, as mentioned, PRACTICAL issues
>>> intervene. Time/MONEY/reliability are also very important. These
>>> ain't the filthy-rich 60s anymore so if it WORKS you DON'T mess with
>>> it.
>> 
>> There comes a point in many projects when you realize that the effort
>> helped define the criteria and while you have a better understanding of
>> the problem you really should scrap the code and start over. Time, money,
>> and ego involvement ensure that seldom happens.
> 
> Ive done that several times.
> You sketch out something, realise that was partly wrong, or has got 
> messy, or could be done more simply if chunked out to subroutines, and 
> start again using the bits of code that worked.
> 
> The cost benefit is against the top down "we will write the whole 
> detailed spec before we write a line of code" idea  that in my 
> experience is actually worse.
> 
> In practice I work both ends to the middle. Write what is obvious in 
> spec or code first, and then see what problems remain unsolved.....
> 

I’ve done it a few times. I thoughhtI had a design that would work, but
after a bit of coding problems showed up, so I scrapped it and started
over. I think better in code than in the abstract, so this was my
equivalent of doodling on a yellow pad. Also, it was almost never a total
loss - most of the functional routines were reusable, and only the logic
needed to be redone.

-- 
Pete