3 ms·

Edit: I forgot to check if there were other responses already. Oops! Never mind. Also, in addition to being late, I was also wrong (or, at best, partially wrong

by drdeca 11y ago

Edit: I forgot to check if there were other responses already. Oops! Never mind. Also, in addition to being late, I was also wrong (or, at best, partially wrong) Doesn't it usually at least connotate having large amounts of code, often repetitive code? Especially code that should be split into smaller functions? I thought that was the case, but I would not be surprised that it is also used more broadly

Retric 11y ago
It's generally the other end, where there is 'not enough' code. Early systems needed to be like this because there was very little memory for your code and people would often do things use calculated jumps based on some register value. Not to mention the joys of self modifying code. This all sounds cool until someone actually hands you "Mel's" code: http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/mel.html PS: Beginners or Evil people, would also get into horrid messes by trying to get something that sort of works into something that almost worked.