>SNIP
>>>I don't see why anyone would have a problem with EITHER of the situations above. It sure wouldn't be a factor in any hire or not decision on my part.
>>
>>Jim,
>>
>>Well, I do. The first example demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of computing. Further, it introduces more code (by a factor of 5) than is necessary.
>>
>
>We do differ here George. It demonstrates, in MY opinion, nothing about the "fundamentals of comupting". It's just a perfectly legitimate way of accomplishing something.
>And the code is perfectly clear despite having 5X the number of lines. Where's the problem?... extra time it took to write?... extra time it takes to execute?... or simply not sexy? None of these merit disdain in MY opinion.
>
Jim,

You're entitled to your opinion and so am I.

It has nothing to do with being "sexy". It has everything to do with reducing the code base and making the code easier to read and more maintainable. On this last point, less is more. The less code you have to maintain the easier it is.