home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Atari Mega Archive 1
/
Atari Mega Archive - Volume 1.iso
/
lists
/
gem
/
l_1199
/
1195
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1994-08-27
|
3KB
From: mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Michel Forget)
Subject: Re: Digest
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 1994 06:30:08 -0600
Precedence: bulk
[This is a digested reply.]
Timothy -> Ken:
>And you're not reading what I said either. I said, "I will soon for the
>sake of knowing it."
I have no clue what WF_BEVENT is. I'll look in the Compendium.
Timothy -> Ken:
>And you have no right to question my credibility as a GEM programmer.
Ken/Dan (whichever) has questioned the competence of at least six
programmers on this list. Usually the person he is arguing with at
the time becomes the victim... There is not much to being a GEM
programmer. If you follow the rules (use the event-driven model) and
do not deviate from the existing standard (or guidelines) then that
seems sufficient to me. It does not say anywhere that you have to
agree with Kan (Ken + Dan = Kan) to be a good programmer.
Kan -> Timothy:
>The "most elegant" to me sounds like "the laziest". I.e. put the least
>amount of effort in doing something. If you're going to do something, why
>not spend the time doing it RIGHT? Rather than a half-hearted attempt at
>doing the bare minimum?
Kan (this is the name I intend to keep using; it is much easier than
typing Ken/Dan -- no need to take it as an insult, because it is not),
the most elegant solution can mean many things. It could be the fastest,
or the smallest, or the easiest to read, or any combination of those. It
is different for every programmer and every application. In my case, the
most elegant solution is a combination. My point is that it is a different
issue for everyone. Since you do not know Timothy, calling him lazy,
stupid, ignorant, peasant-like, foolish, or anything else is really a
meaningless thing to do.
Timothy -> Ken:
>Once again, you are twisting the facts. I go for SIMPLE. You know...
>keep it simple, stupid! The less code, the less likely is one to find a
>bug. The more modular your code is the easier it is to test in parts,
>and the more intellegently you use that modularity, the smaller you code
>will be.
All true; I am not great at writing completely self-contained modules (so
that they can be tested independantly of the rest of the program). It
would be handy to be able to do so, though... :)
>On the other hand, if you don't change it, people WILL notice because
>they'll be losing a lot of data.
--
Michel Forget \\ mforget@elfhaven.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca //
Electric Storm Software \\ ess@tibalt.supernet.ab.ca //
PGP Public Key Finger. = 1F C0 D3 FE 40 51 7F 47 F3 4A C6 AD 6E 02 71 85