Ben Finney wrote:
> "Andy Salnikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Too many" is always opposite to "hard to make a mistake", at least
>> in my mind.
>
> I parsed the assertion as:
>
> (It's hard to
> (make a mistake
> (by having
> (too many
> (short and simple)
"Andy Salnikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > QOTW: "It's hard to make a mistake by having too many short and simple
> > functions. And much too easy to make them when you have too few ;-)"
> > - Thomas Bartkus
> >
>
Andy Salnikov wrote:
>> QOTW: "It's hard to make a mistake by having too many short and simple
>> functions. And much too easy to make them when you have too few ;-)"
>> - Thomas Bartkus
>>
> And of course there is a mathematical proof of that provided
> somewhere, isn't it? :)
If there were a
"Peter Otten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> QOTW: "It's hard to make a mistake by having too many short and simple
> functions. And much too easy to make them when you have too few ;-)"
> - Thomas Bartkus
>
And of course there is a mathematical proof of that prov
