No, the argument is that it can happen if someone decides that it's worth doing. Just making the code open doesn't mean that anyone will read it. It does, however, mean that:
And, if someone else does an audit, there's a better chance that they are not bound by NDA and can therefore speak freely about what they find.
Do you re-use your functions, or do they only exist to break apart a single operation into smaller blocks? If it's the latter, then he may have a good point
I disagree, strongly. Breaking a large routine into smaller ones abstracts away what those smaller routines are doing. It puts a boundry around their interaction with the rest of the code, and puts their code away somewhere that I don't have to worry about, unless there's some reason I want/need to know the details of how that routine accomplishes what it does.
Both approaches have merit and should be used where it makes sense. When abstracting away some lower level detail, a separate method may be best, but when breaking a higher level method into it's higher level steps (if that makes sense), keeping it all in one method keeps it linear which can help with reading/review.
It matters though how a method is broken up. Use whitespace to separate logical sections. Have a short comment at the top of each section to indicate what that section does. Write the comments first as an outline of the method. Declare variables where they are first used. Declare them in a limited scope where possible. Declare them const where possible (especially if method-global) to limit later misuse. In some languages you can introduce a nested scope for no other reason than to isolate local variables if you like.
And note that breaking the method into separate sub-methods doesn't necessarily solve the problem of changes near the beginning breaking things later on. It just makes it harder to know where the "beginning" and the "later on" are.
Though practically impossible with current or proposed technology, it would, indeed, take only 35 days to reach 0.1c, and we'd be 225 million km from our starting point, ignoring gravitational effects of other bodies. Though in astronomical terms that's not very far (less than the diameter of Earth's orbit) - less than half way to Jupiter on the closest possible approach.
35 days at 1g to get to 0.1c is about right, but the distance you'd travel in the process is around 45 billion km. You'd pass the Voyager probes.
Why rotate. Nuclear powered spacecraft could simply keep accelerating at 1G until it was time to turn around and decelerate at 1G. Problem solves, and they would get there a lot quicker too.
Not sure how close we are technologically to doing something like this, but Earth to Mars would only be a day or two. Think about how much less life support (food, water, etc.) needs to be sent along with the crew if the transit is that short. Also, if you're going to Mars, why not do
that it will happen in 2012?
12,5%
Uh, no. It's about 1,66%. That is, if the probably is the same for each of the next 8 years (it isn't) and the probably of it *not* happening in the first year is 98,34%, then the probably of it *not* happening in the next 8 is 0.9834^8 = 87.5%.
head -c 15
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine