??? 08/15/05 20:02 Read: times |
#99477 - please define "working" Responding to: ???'s previous message |
By competent I mean working
please define "working". What I am pushing is known to work, not shown to work. I do not suspect any participant in this discussion of having problems with atomicity, but an atomicity problem is a good example of the difference between something that has been "shown to work" but does'nt, since such a bug can wait months before showing up. The company I work for has found out that the cost of a service call is more than $500. You can do an awful lot of defensive coding for that cost with 1000+ units shipped monthly. So, to use the past challenge as an example, I will rather shift 32 pos by a straight forward way that takes 57 cycles than a more obscure process that takes 48 if the more obscure can not be "seen" to function in all cases. Erik |