1 Mar
2002
1 Mar
'02
3:22 p.m.
From: Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
Joe Campbell and I spent a fair amount of time
together while he was
writing it, "RS232 Solution", and "Crafting C tools". I didn't
completely
agree with his level of data abstraction.
Fred, what do you mean here? Too abstract, or not abstract enough? The
code *is* portable, which requires an certain degree of abstraction.
Please clarify -- thanks.
Glen
0/0
2 Mar
2 Mar
4:22 a.m.
On Sat, 2 Mar 2002, Glen Goodwin wrote:
Fred, what do you mean here? Too abstract, or not
abstract enough? The
code *is* portable, which requires an certain degree of abstraction.
Please clarify -- thanks.
Entirely an issue of personal preference.
Consider three hypothetical forms of source code:
A: MOV AH, 2
MOV DL, 41h
INT 21h
B: MOV AH, 2 ; character display function
MOV DL, 'B'
INT 21h ; DOS API
C: MOV AH, DISPLAY
MOV DL, OURCHAR
INT DOSSERVICES
I prefer B, but there were a few cases where I felt that he was tending
towards C. (and plenty of times when I slip into writing A)
Abstraction is very useful and necessary for some types of portability.
But I don't like to have to go thorough a separate .H file to find out
what the code is that is being abstracted.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin(a)xenosoft.com
8331
days inactive
8332
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
acme_ent＠bellsouth.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com