Lyle Fairfield <lylefairfield@aim.com> wrote in
news:Xns97C1D6A218ED6lylefairfieldaimcom@216.221.8 1.119:
[color=blue]
> "David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns97C160A8FB366f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@127.0.0. 1:
>[color=green]
>> I think it creates extremely bad code to nest WITH blocks. To me,
>> it's a sign of a bad programmer, as it's optimization that makes
>> the code much harder to read and understand.[/color]
>
> I'm a bad programmer.[/color]
A regular participant in one of the other forums I participate in
regularly points out that code is going to be *read* more often that
it is *written*. Thus, optimizations of the *writing* of the code,
when they make the code more convoluted, are going to be much more
inefficient than any amount of verbosity.
Now, this is separate from the issue of performance. My feeling is
that WITH blocks can speed up certain kinds of looped operations,
since they create an implicit reference to a parent object rather
than having to resolve through both the parent object's collection
and that of whatever object you're looking for within the
collections of that parent object.
But, in general, the feeling of a need to nest WITHs seems to me to
be an erroneous compulsion, one that makes the code harder to
maintain.
--
David W. Fenton
http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com
http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/ 
