Re: Term for elegant, efficient, tight code?

["Michael West" <mbwest -at- bigpond -dot- net -dot- au>]

David wrote:

> At some point, we got into the definitions of 
> the terms, and I commented on their usage by 
> the CS professors and professionals I've known, 
> among whom compilation and operation of a 
> solution are assumed:  they wouldn't even be 
> considering code that wouldn't compile or that 
> didn't work correctly.

Well, then I guess we agree.

But what you *wrote* was this:

 " if it won't even compile, its elegance, efficiency, 
  and tightness don't carry much significance"

-- which suggests that it *can* have 
"elegance" (albeit insignificant elegance)
even though it won't compile.

I understood Doc's citation to be arguing
the point that "elegance" requires a number
of things -- and among them the quality of 
validity. So it seems that Doc also misunderstood
your intent -- or I have misunderstood Doc's
intent.

Glad that's all settled now. <Sigh> too.

Regarding your aside to Eric, a discussion of
terminology pertinent to science and technology
surely could not violate anyone's sense of propriety
in this forum.  I suspect I'm the villain with my comments
about (cross)-dressing for success.

MW



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Robohelp X3, from eHelp, lets you quickly and easily create 
professional Help systems for all your Windows and Web-based 
applications, including Net. 

Order RoboHelp X3 in May and receive a $100 mail-in rebate, PLUS
free RoboScreenCapture and WebHelp Merge Module. 
 
Order RoboHelp today: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.