|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-14)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (Mitchell Perilstein) (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (Toon Moene) (1996-02-16)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (1996-02-17)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-19)|
|Re: marking mystery code firstname.lastname@example.org (James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763) (1996-02-21)|
|Re: marking mystery code email@example.com (1996-02-24)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronald F. Guilmette)|
|Date:||19 Feb 1996 16:03:54 -0500|
|Organization:||Infinite Monkeys & Co.|
|References:||96-01-116 96-02-138 96-02-168|
)[FSF code has mystery code, just like dusty Fortran decks in 1976]
Robert Dewar <email@example.com> wrote:
)Gary, are you speaking from personal experiences with the FSF sources,
)which many people have found easy to work with, or are you borrowing
)second or third hand comments without this personal experience?
Mike McCarty <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I can speak from personal experience working with the FSF code. It is
>generally bloated, difficult (read: impossible) to read, uncommented,
>and much of it is totally unmaintainable.
I have over 7 years of experience with all manner of GNU code... but
mostly the compilers.
I'm afraid that I have to agree with Mr. McCarty.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, CA -------- Infinite Monkeys & Co. ------------
---- E-mail: email@example.com ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test Suites -
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.