>
>I am amazed at the ill-logical notion of an "efficient program that
>doesn't work". How can it be efficient if it doesn't work, in the first
>place?
>

The point is that sometimes we have programs, routines etc that work but have 'bad' or spaghetti code, are inefficient and slow etc. so we 'fix' it to look and work better. Sometimes our fixes aren't complete, or haven't been tested, but hey! the code is so much better, it will eventually run much better. (and look how neatly it was typed in and commented!)

There is something to be said for a program that actually works, no matter how badly written!


>I have a corresponding rule, related to maintainance. Begins with a
>programming joke:
>
>A man comes home after some years (of prison or anything), and sees his
>wife, and the multitude of children. The kids are very dirty, kind of
>been playing with mud. He asks the wife:
>
>-Do we wash them, or make new ones?
>

Well designed kids will wash themselves!



Bob