E
Eeyore
Guest
"David L. Jones" wrote:
Graham
Nor did I say it was. Jeez !
Graham
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
E
Eeyore
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Obsession with writing assembler (seemingly for the sake of it) strikes me as
typical of 'god like' behaviour actually. I suspect a lot of it is to do with job
insecurity and the desire to obfuscate.
Graham
I will do no such thing.Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
Spoken like a true experienced coder in the field of uC. I'm glad
you stepped up to the plate.
And I doubt Graham will respond to the challenge. He probably has
either read what I've written before or else can, now prodded, think
of a few reasons and evidence that makes his claims clearly false.
I can think of no reason whatever to use a language (assembler) that requires
more than one line of code to even add two numbers, never mind anything more
complex.
Then your imagination is unusually restricted.
Three choices are obvious at this juncture. Feel free to suggest
others. (1) You can retract your sweeping, godlike statement, tell me
you really aren't interested in knowing any more about it, and we can
disengage with a notched-down statement from you that allows for other
possibilities you cannot and have not been able to imagine.
Obsession with writing assembler (seemingly for the sake of it) strikes me as
typical of 'god like' behaviour actually. I suspect a lot of it is to do with job
insecurity and the desire to obfuscate.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Graham
Whine, whine whine .......Eeyore wrote:
I think you're mistaken to imagine everyone uses PICs. It's more of a
joke than reality AIUI.
You're just being anti-PIC.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
I think you raise a valid point, that not everyone uses PICs, though I
think your choice of words is very poor after that point.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
CHMOS) version came out.
Graham
And my first exposure to an 8051 was in 1985 when the first CMOS (actually Intel'sMicrochip is no joke to anyone. I've been using their parts as part
of my consulting with many companies, since around 1987 or so, when
they first started making them available for smaller businesses to use
CHMOS) version came out.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
John Fields wrote:
The 3 parallel address spaces in the 8051 are damn useful. Not least because your
I/O can use low cost partial address decoding.
Graham
For WHAT REASON ?"Anthony Fremont" <nobody@noplace.net> wrote:
Probably, it's their counterpart to the Microchip PIC. Atmel also makes ARM
processors. Of all the processors I've played with, I think the ARM has the
most beautiful architecture.
---
I don't know if they still use it, because I'm not in that game any
more, but I hated Intel for their segmented gangster-like addressing
scheme and I fell in love with Motorola's lovely flat address space
from the getgo.
The 3 parallel address spaces in the 8051 are damn useful. Not least because your
I/O can use low cost partial address decoding.
Graham
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:23:54 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
only be due to "obsession." If that is the extreme you believe in,
I'm sure you are in a smaller group of believers.
And no, it has nothing to do with what you suggested. And if you were
willing to listen to those who know better than you about this, you'd
be able to learn something new. You suspicions are simply wrong, as
was your earlier claim.
I smiled a little at the suggestion from you that the very idea of
writing assembler can only come out of some "godlike" behavior. I
know that you only mean that as silly "turn the tables" rhetoric,
since it simply isn't possible you mean it seriously. My point in
saying it the way I did would be clear and easily understood as
correct by anyone. Your sweeping statements could ONLY be made from a
position of conprehensive and complete knowledge. And everyone knows
that you do NOT have that perspetive. So my point stands clear and
true. By comparison, your comment is just ridiculuous. Daring to use
a line of assembly is no more godlike than writing a line of c would
be. And I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with you about it.
Still being rather parochial, I see.
If you are ever up to seeing a few practical examples from real
projects, let me know.
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Your choice, of course. You are still wrong.Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:
Spoken like a true experienced coder in the field of uC. I'm glad
you stepped up to the plate.
And I doubt Graham will respond to the challenge. He probably has
either read what I've written before or else can, now prodded, think
of a few reasons and evidence that makes his claims clearly false.
I can think of no reason whatever to use a language (assembler) that requires
more than one line of code to even add two numbers, never mind anything more
complex.
Then your imagination is unusually restricted.
Three choices are obvious at this juncture. Feel free to suggest
others. (1) You can retract your sweeping, godlike statement, tell me
you really aren't interested in knowing any more about it, and we can
disengage with a notched-down statement from you that allows for other
possibilities you cannot and have not been able to imagine.
I will do no such thing.
I take it that you imagine that any use at all of assembly today canObsession with writing assembler (seemingly for the sake of it) strikes me as
typical of 'god like' behaviour actually. I suspect a lot of it is to do with job
insecurity and the desire to obfuscate.
only be due to "obsession." If that is the extreme you believe in,
I'm sure you are in a smaller group of believers.
And no, it has nothing to do with what you suggested. And if you were
willing to listen to those who know better than you about this, you'd
be able to learn something new. You suspicions are simply wrong, as
was your earlier claim.
I smiled a little at the suggestion from you that the very idea of
writing assembler can only come out of some "godlike" behavior. I
know that you only mean that as silly "turn the tables" rhetoric,
since it simply isn't possible you mean it seriously. My point in
saying it the way I did would be clear and easily understood as
correct by anyone. Your sweeping statements could ONLY be made from a
position of conprehensive and complete knowledge. And everyone knows
that you do NOT have that perspetive. So my point stands clear and
true. By comparison, your comment is just ridiculuous. Daring to use
a line of assembly is no more godlike than writing a line of c would
be. And I don't think you'll find anyone to agree with you about it.
Still being rather parochial, I see.
If you are ever up to seeing a few practical examples from real
projects, let me know.
Jon
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:28:42 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
parts. My very first digital/analog hobby project was done with an
80C31 and the code ran the first time out, too. Turned an IBM
typewriter into a printer for my computer, in 1984/85. Oh. It was
written entirely in assembler and took me a day to write. Never had
to change a line of it, later.
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
I love the 8051, as well. Have a few hundred of them in a box ofJohn Fields wrote:
"Anthony Fremont" <nobody@noplace.net> wrote:
Probably, it's their counterpart to the Microchip PIC. Atmel also makes ARM
processors. Of all the processors I've played with, I think the ARM has the
most beautiful architecture.
---
I don't know if they still use it, because I'm not in that game any
more, but I hated Intel for their segmented gangster-like addressing
scheme and I fell in love with Motorola's lovely flat address space
from the getgo.
For WHAT REASON ?
The 3 parallel address spaces in the 8051 are damn useful. Not least because your
I/O can use low cost partial address decoding.
parts. My very first digital/analog hobby project was done with an
80C31 and the code ran the first time out, too. Turned an IBM
typewriter into a printer for my computer, in 1984/85. Oh. It was
written entirely in assembler and took me a day to write. Never had
to change a line of it, later.
Jon
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:25:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
support I've gotten from Microchip, in almost all of what I wrote and
you clipped. In fact, I have a hard time finding any whining at all
-- unless you don't like me saying that you are foolish to say "joke
than reality." If that's all, then it's not whining -- just pointing
out where you are wrong.
I note you did NOT ever say why you said what you said about the PIC.
I can only imagine it is for quite silly reasons. But I'd love to
hear you say the real reason you wrote that way. I don't expect to,
but that's okay too.
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Actually, I wasn't at all, Graham. I was talking about the goodJonathan Kirwan wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
I think you're mistaken to imagine everyone uses PICs. It's more of a
joke than reality AIUI.
You're just being anti-PIC.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
I think you raise a valid point, that not everyone uses PICs, though I
think your choice of words is very poor after that point.
Whine, whine whine .......
support I've gotten from Microchip, in almost all of what I wrote and
you clipped. In fact, I have a hard time finding any whining at all
-- unless you don't like me saying that you are foolish to say "joke
than reality." If that's all, then it's not whining -- just pointing
out where you are wrong.
I note you did NOT ever say why you said what you said about the PIC.
I can only imagine it is for quite silly reasons. But I'd love to
hear you say the real reason you wrote that way. I don't expect to,
but that's okay too.
Jon
J
Jonathan Kirwan
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:26:49 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
them in a box of parts and I still use them in my hobby projects, once
in a while. As I wrote, my very first digital/analog hobby project
was done with an 80C31 and the code ran the first time out. I really
liked the CPU, too. I took an IBM Electronic 85 typewriter, scoped
out the reed relays and the signaling, and designed and built myself a
nice little wire-wrap board to turn that typewriter into a printer for
my computer, in 1984 or so. It was written entirely in assembler
(using the free table assembler available from a guy in Washington
state who was making products for the blind or deaf, if memory
serves.) The whole software thing took me a day to write and I never
had to change a line of it, later on.
I enjoy the 8051 core, a lot. And the Cygnal parts -- or that new
company that owns them now -- were really nice to play with, a few
years back. Still have and use them, occasionally.
Jon
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, as I said earlier, I also love the 8051. Have a few hundred ofJonathan Kirwan wrote:
Microchip is no joke to anyone. I've been using their parts as part
of my consulting with many companies, since around 1987 or so, when
they first started making them available for smaller businesses to use
And my first exposure to an 8051 was in 1985 when the first CMOS (actually Intel's
CHMOS) version came out.
them in a box of parts and I still use them in my hobby projects, once
in a while. As I wrote, my very first digital/analog hobby project
was done with an 80C31 and the code ran the first time out. I really
liked the CPU, too. I took an IBM Electronic 85 typewriter, scoped
out the reed relays and the signaling, and designed and built myself a
nice little wire-wrap board to turn that typewriter into a printer for
my computer, in 1984 or so. It was written entirely in assembler
(using the free table assembler available from a guy in Washington
state who was making products for the blind or deaf, if memory
serves.) The whole software thing took me a day to write and I never
had to change a line of it, later on.
I enjoy the 8051 core, a lot. And the Cygnal parts -- or that new
company that owns them now -- were really nice to play with, a few
years back. Still have and use them, occasionally.
Jon
D
David L. Jones
Guest
On Oct 25, 6:17 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
needed at all (or whatever it was), when it clearly still has an
important place in the development cycle.
too!, but it's always easier to read and comprehend crap C code than
crap assembler code.
And that's why anyone who writes large or even medium size apps in
just assembler is crazy. High level languages have so many advantages
and should be used, unless you need assembler for a specific reason.
My most recent PIC project would have been ridiculously complex and
taken several order of magnitude longer if I wrote it all in
assembler. But I did use a pre-written IEEE floating point package,
the core of which is written entirely in assembler. It was extremely
quick, and I was thankful that some poor schmuck had already written
and debugged it, because the code was almost un-intelligible.
Small in-line assembly is very handy. You can write a routine and know
exactly how many cycles it's going to take regardless of what
optimisation setting you have the compiler set to.
I had the "pleasure" once to take over a project using a TI DSP that
was not only written entirely in Forth, but it used a home-made
compiler only available in German. Awful does not begin to describe
it!
Dave.
wrote:
I think people just took offense to you saying that assembler is not"David L. Jones" wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ian field wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote
On the other matter, why are you so interested in PICs (as opposed
to 8051 family or any other) ? One nice thing about 8051 is that
the basic architecture doesn't change from model to model. I've
also heard that the data on the chips is more reliable.
Maybe I'm just more comfortable following what everyone else is
doing - Who knows, if I do well at PICs I might even have a look at
the AVR.
I think you're mistaken to imagine everyone uses PICs. It's more of a
joke than reality AIUI.
You're just being anti-PIC.
Not at all. I'm just poking fun at the oft-seen throwaway "use a PIC" comment.
Do you really think there are more people using
805x parts than PICs?
I believe they're used in comparable numbers.
Considering that you have little experience in programming micros
Meow !
and aparently none with PICs, I'm at a complete loss to
understand why you want to ram PL/M and 805x down everyones throat every
time this stuff comes up.
You sound a bit over-sensitive to me. I'm not ramming either down anyone's
throat. I was however posing a reasonable question to Ian.
What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's massive overkill.
PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they produce.
The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient
code, even on the 14bit PICs.
I dare say that must be possible, yet the anitpathy to HLLs in this thread is quite
extraordinary and must have some basis. Possibly as a result of poorly implemented 'C'
compilers.
needed at all (or whatever it was), when it clearly still has an
important place in the development cycle.
Same here. Although I've seen my fair share of shockingly awful C codeI think people fret too much and quite possibly erroneously assume that assembler will
provide a superior result when it's far from clear to me that's the case because it'll
depend highly on the individual programmer's skill. As I previously said, all the
worst code I've ever seen is in assembler.
too!, but it's always easier to read and comprehend crap C code than
crap assembler code.
And that's why anyone who writes large or even medium size apps in
just assembler is crazy. High level languages have so many advantages
and should be used, unless you need assembler for a specific reason.
My most recent PIC project would have been ridiculously complex and
taken several order of magnitude longer if I wrote it all in
assembler. But I did use a pre-written IEEE floating point package,
the core of which is written entirely in assembler. It was extremely
quick, and I was thankful that some poor schmuck had already written
and debugged it, because the code was almost un-intelligible.
Small in-line assembly is very handy. You can write a routine and know
exactly how many cycles it's going to take regardless of what
optimisation setting you have the compiler set to.
I had the "pleasure" once to take over a project using a TI DSP that
was not only written entirely in Forth, but it used a home-made
compiler only available in German. Awful does not begin to describe
it!
Dave.
E
Eeyore
Guest
"David L. Jones" wrote:
rarely a valid need for it. I can certainly see that some people might use it as a job
protection measure for sure.
Graham
I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever. MY experience is simply that there isEeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Considering that you have little experience in programming micros
Meow !
and aparently none with PICs, I'm at a complete loss to
understand why you want to ram PL/M and 805x down everyones throat every
time this stuff comes up.
You sound a bit over-sensitive to me. I'm not ramming either down anyone's
throat. I was however posing a reasonable question to Ian.
What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's massive overkill.
PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they produce.
The top quality C compilers can produce superbly tight and efficient
code, even on the 14bit PICs.
I dare say that must be possible, yet the anitpathy to HLLs in this thread is quite
extraordinary and must have some basis. Possibly as a result of poorly implemented 'C'
compilers.
I think people just took offense to you saying that assembler is not
needed at all (or whatever it was), when it clearly still has an
important place in the development cycle.
rarely a valid need for it. I can certainly see that some people might use it as a job
protection measure for sure.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
"David L. Jones" wrote:
the manager.
results in about 30k bytes of binary code (actual ROM space).
2 comments about it.
It did contain some niggling bugs but the high level nature of it made it relatively easy
for me to detect and fix.
I cannot even conceive of how it could have intelligently written in assembler. It runs to
something like about 40-50 pages of source !
As a further comment, the coder we used was himself an assembler fan, but at the end of the
project, to his credit, he said to me "I understand now why you wanted it written in PL/M".
Graham
EXACTLY ! Assembler makes it easier to hide poor code writing skills IMHO. Certainly so fromEeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think people fret too much and quite possibly erroneously assume that assembler will
provide a superior result when it's far from clear to me that's the case because it'll
depend highly on the individual programmer's skill. As I previously said, all the
worst code I've ever seen is in assembler.
Same here. Although I've seen my fair share of shockingly awful C code
too!, but it's always easier to read and comprehend crap C code than
crap assembler code.
the manager.
You're beginning to sound rather like me !And that's why anyone who writes large or even medium size apps in
just assembler is crazy. High level languages have so many advantages
and should be used, unless you need assembler for a specific reason.
There's a particular application that was originally written for my client in PL/M thatMy most recent PIC project would have been ridiculously complex and
taken several order of magnitude longer if I wrote it all in
assembler.
results in about 30k bytes of binary code (actual ROM space).
2 comments about it.
It did contain some niggling bugs but the high level nature of it made it relatively easy
for me to detect and fix.
I cannot even conceive of how it could have intelligently written in assembler. It runs to
something like about 40-50 pages of source !
As a further comment, the coder we used was himself an assembler fan, but at the end of the
project, to his credit, he said to me "I understand now why you wanted it written in PL/M".
Graham
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:28:42 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Take a look at their architecture, their instruction cycle times,
and code a project or two and you might find out.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
--
JF
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
---John Fields wrote:
"Anthony Fremont" <nobody@noplace.net> wrote:
Probably, it's their counterpart to the Microchip PIC. Atmel also makes ARM
processors. Of all the processors I've played with, I think the ARM has the
most beautiful architecture.
---
I don't know if they still use it, because I'm not in that game any
more, but I hated Intel for their segmented gangster-like addressing
scheme and I fell in love with Motorola's lovely flat address space
from the getgo.
For WHAT REASON ?
Take a look at their architecture, their instruction cycle times,
and code a project or two and you might find out.
---The 3 parallel address spaces in the 8051 are damn useful. Not least because your
I/O can use low cost partial address decoding.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
--
JF
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:00:35 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
jack
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Let me remind you.I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever.
Quote:
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
jack
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:03:06 +0900, spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
Oh, and another post of yours contained:
"Seriously, the need to use assembler vanished about 30+ years
ago."
jack
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:00:35 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever.
Let me remind you.
Quote:
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
jack
Oh, and another post of yours contained:
"Seriously, the need to use assembler vanished about 30+ years
ago."
jack
A
Anthony Fremont
Guest
Eeyore wrote:
writing code. OTOH, you act like your an absolute expert on programming
techniques after having worked with an 805x processor in the mid 80's.
Since you've made no other claims as to your experience, I assume that's the
extent of it.
I didn't claim to know allot about PL/M, but I do know something aboutAnthony Fremont wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's
massive overkill. PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they
produce.
AIUI, PL/M is a mish-mash of PL/1, ALGOL and some other odd stuff.
It looks like some bastardization of COBOL and C to me.
Shows how little you know about it.
writing code. OTOH, you act like your an absolute expert on programming
techniques after having worked with an 805x processor in the mid 80's.
Since you've made no other claims as to your experience, I assume that's the
extent of it.
J
John Fields
Guest
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:00:35 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Conveniently short memory?
From:
471CEA2A.DDE3977D@hotmail.com
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
---
I suggest, then, that your experience is rather limited.
---
Since the cost of implementing and maintaining assembly language
often makes its use impractical, I doubt whether competent
management would allow its use, carte blanche, at the discretion of
a job-insecure programmer.
--
JF
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
---"David L. Jones" wrote:
I think people just took offense to you saying that assembler is not
needed at all (or whatever it was), when it clearly still has an
important place in the development cycle.
I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever.
Conveniently short memory?
From:
471CEA2A.DDE3977D@hotmail.com
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
---
---MY experience is simply that there is rarely a valid need for it.
I suggest, then, that your experience is rather limited.
---
---I can certainly see that some people might use it as a job
protection measure for sure.
Since the cost of implementing and maintaining assembly language
often makes its use impractical, I doubt whether competent
management would allow its use, carte blanche, at the discretion of
a job-insecure programmer.
--
JF
E
Eeyore
Guest
spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
Graham
NEED to use is a completely different matter.spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever.
Let me remind you.
Quote:
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
jack
Oh, and another post of yours contained:
"Seriously, the need to use assembler vanished about 30+ years
ago."
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Graham
90s and 00s.Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Fremont wrote:
What is it exactly that is so great about PL/M
and so "Bleh" about C?
'C' was never intended as a programming language for uCs. It's
massive overkill. PL/M was. Check the efficiency of the code they
produce.
AIUI, PL/M is a mish-mash of PL/1, ALGOL and some other odd stuff.
It looks like some bastardization of COBOL and C to me.
Shows how little you know about it.
I didn't claim to know allot about PL/M, but I do know something about
writing code. OTOH, you act like your an absolute expert on programming
techniques after having worked with an 805x processor in the mid 80's.
Graham
E
Eeyore
Guest
John Fields wrote:
Graham
And I suggest you're wrong.Eeyore wrote:
"David L. Jones" wrote:
I think people just took offense to you saying that assembler is not
needed at all (or whatever it was), when it clearly still has an
important place in the development cycle.
I don't recall saying it never had ANY place whatever.
---
Conveniently short memory?
From:
471CEA2A.DDE3977D@hotmail.com
"Assembly language makes NO sense whatever to my mind in the modern
world."
---
MY experience is simply that there is rarely a valid need for it.
---
I suggest, then, that your experience is rather limited.
Your presumption of COMPETENT management is touching.I can certainly see that some people might use it as a job
protection measure for sure.
---
Since the cost of implementing and maintaining assembly language
often makes its use impractical, I doubt whether competent
management would allow its use, carte blanche, at the discretion of
a job-insecure programmer.
Graham