> > Unless your "big iron" guys are similarly inexperienced (being a beginner > is a good excuse for many mistakes), then they are incompetent. There is > *no* excuse for a knowledgeable programmer using an inefficient and unsafe > function in such a horribly unclear manner
I disagree, but I'm closer to the situation. They are under a lot of pressure, and helping me out is something they do in odd moments. I'm happy for what I can get. > Having lots of memory and processor resources available is not a reason to > write rubbish. It *is* a good reason for prioritising development time over > run-time (that's why I often write PC software in Python, not C). If you > want to go to the shop two miles away, you might take your car - it's faster > and easier, even if it costs more than walking. But you don't get your car > out the garage to drive to your post box at the bottom of the garden - > that's the equivalent of using sprintf in this case. I agree. Sprintf certainly wasn't optimal, but it did WORK, and that was my main concern at the moment. > I will admit to being ignorant in C, but I'm not stupid. :) > > > > Don't worry, ignorance is curable :-) Yup.. Working on it. :)
_______________________________________________ AVR-GCC-list mailing list AVR-GCC-list@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list
