A product requires revision. I did not design or write the original, but because I have redefined the message format and protocol, this product must be revised. It was written in PIC assembler . The code looks like it was neatly done by someone who understood very clearly what he was doing. Comments are meaningful, but a little sparse. The design of the algorithm is highly coupled to the architecture and instruction set of the PIC, which I am having to learn with the data sheet open in another window while I'm reading the code.
No wonder my brain is feeling bashed at the end of a working day. Am I too old for this? Don't answer that!
"Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
Comments
:-?
Repeatedly proves to me that there's no such thing as too many comments in a bit of code
Code whodunnit was extremely satisfying once you nailed it ! I am lord of all I survey etc
Feedback
Feedback
Edit: why did 68k architecture have to get superseded by others that weren't half so nice? why is it that only crap architectures survive when they damn well didn't ought to?
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
Feedback
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself