Efficiency AND Readability

[David Collier-Brown]

>From article <141 at twwells.uucp>, by bill at twwells.uucp (T. William Wells):
> Here we get the same old argument, rehashed: "efficient code is
> unreadable". It is not necessarily true.  And in many cases, the
> claim of unreadability is merely a demonstration that the reader does
> not make it a practice to read that kind of code, rather than a valid
> claim that the code is inherently unreadable.

  A good counter-example to the claim that efficient code is
unreadable (and also the claim that its non-portable) exists in the
TeX typesetting implementation.

  The author was concerned with all three, and so invented a
language (formerly called DOC, now WEB) to allow the three to
coexist.  Regrettably, it works best for monstrous great books, not
little critical bits...

 Donald E. Knuth, "TeX: The PRogram", Volume B of "Computers and
Typesetting", Reading, Mass (Addison-Wesley), 1896.

--dave (ah well, some people don't read) c-b
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.  | yunexus!lethe!dave
 Interleaf Canada Inc. |
 1550 Enterprise Rd.   | HE's so smart he's dumb.
 Mississauga, Ontario  |       --Joyce C-B