64 bit architectures and C/C++

[Phil Howard KA9WGN]

jerry at talos.npri.com (Jerry Gitomer) writes:

>	IMHO (now isn't that an arrogant phrase? :-) ) it is better to fix
>	up the offending programs now than to do it later.  I say this
>	because I presume that salaries will continue to increase, which
>	will make it more expensive to fix things up later, and because
>	staff turnover leads to a decrease over time in knowledge of the
>	offending programs.

Also, what about staff MORALE?  I don't know about a lot of other programmers,
but I for one would be much happier at the very least cleaning up old code and
making it work right (or better yet rewriting it from scratch the way it SHOULD
have been done in the first place) than perpetuationg bad designs of the past
which translate into inefficiencies of the future.

But if you are interested in getting things converted quickly, then just make
TWO models of the compiler.  You then assign a special flag name to make the
compiler work in such a way that it will avoid breaking old code.  Programs
written AFTER the compiler is ready should be required to compile WITHOUT that
flag.  You could call the flag "-badcode".  I think that might be a fair
compromise between getting all the old bad code to work now under the new
machine, while still promoting better programming practices for the present
and future (and flagging examples of what NOT to do).
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/