Re: Why are we still using trn?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:11:24PM -0800, Mike Castle wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon  <> wrote:
>> The problem with trn is that the code is so antiquated and ugly that it's
>> not easy to hack things into.  It's missing a lot of stuff I'd like to
> It's actually used as the example for Spencer's and Collyer's paper
> "#ifdefs Considered Harmful".  I think that says quite a bit there.
> Fortunately, most programmers learn and get better.  Sometimes their early
> mistakes stay around for a LONG time, though.

Yeah, compounded by the fact that, although I'm experienced in things like
Perl (even for largish applications), I'm a novice at C, so my mistakes
would simply compound the ones that are in there already. :)

Plus, I know next to nothing about how to make C code really portable, so
I'm hesitant to undertake anything significant even if I think I can do the
job, because I figure I'd probably just do it wrong.

> Whether perl is an improvement is a matter of debate.  ;->

Although I make much of my living coding Perl, I wouldn't want trn redone
in it.  The thing with Perl is that you can never read anyone else's code
(and I would never claim my code to be the exception).  Good for job
security, bad for distributed development. :)


This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!

[Index of Archives]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Epson Inkjet]     [Mhonarc]     [Nntpcache]

  Powered by Linux