Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: The joy of FORTRAN
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 11:06:31 +0100
Organization: A little, after lunch
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <vdj5v7$35p9c$19@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2024 12:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bac04660cf75619118ac0ef002482041";
	logging-data="3335468"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/azjszpU3EyZLqAANyJSH2w1pGMsCr2/Y="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WuXHdNqdR9o/oJVT1f6mi2F/Ed4=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <lm2u9aFs3voU6@mid.individual.net>
Bytes: 3176

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.....

-- 
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and 
wrong.

H.L.Mencken