G
Greg Donald
# dd if=/dev/tty of=/dev/hda1
# dd if=/dev/tty of=/dev/hda1
H
Hendrik van Rooyen
Bart Willems said:I guess you're one of those sissies who uses EDLIN as an editor.
REAL programmers use COPY CON: ...
Naaah.. Real programmers fill in their coding sheets using
indelible ink in their fountain pens, and then send them off
to be punched and verified.
None of this weak minded backspace stuff for us...
- Hendrik
D
Dennis Lee Bieber
Where are they finding that ink!?
Pretty much all of the fountain pen ink manufacturers have descended
to water-based dyes... (Except for a few bottles from Noodlers, which
are rated as permanent).
The common iron-gall inks of mid-century have faded away as being
too acidic (sure, they were permanent -- they etched their way into the
paper over time <G>)
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
(e-mail address removed) (e-mail address removed)
HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
(Bestiaria Support Staff: (e-mail address removed))
HTTP://www.bestiaria.com/
C
Chris Lasher
Thanks to all who replied and made this a very interesting and
informative discussion! It gave my friend, and myself, plenty to think
about.
Much appreciated,
Chris
B
Bruno Desthuilliers
Sherm Pendley a écrit :
Obviously, we don't have the same sense of humor.
I came to this conclusion from my own experience, and it seems that
quite a few other programmers (most of them either better and/or more
experimented than me) came to the same conclusion. But feel free to
believe it's an a priori if that makes you feel better.
Then don't. But I'd still be interested if you could let us know about
any book advocating monster classes as good design.
So let's rephrase your previous assertion :
"what works well for almost anyone having some real world experience
with languages like Python isn't necessarily what works well for
everyone" (implied : "... when using a Python-like language" - this
seemed obvious but it may be better to state it more explicitly, just in
case...).
Nope, just stating a fact - from which you may or not derive some
conclusions.
The fact that a in a given context a significant majority of
experimented users usually favors one approach over the other might be
taken as an indication that there might be some reason for this.
About "proofs", I'm afraid that "proving" things learned from experience
can be sometimes difficult - or at least above my own skills, specially
in a language I'm not very fluent with. But I think I did tried (perhaps
unsuccessfully, but that's another problem) to back my POV, instead of
just resorting to rethoric like you're doing here.
If it was only *my* "preferred style", I wouldn't even argue. Now I'm
not presenting it as a "universal truth", but as the result of
experience (and not only my own) with a given class of languages.
Asserting that one should *always* only put one class per file is just
as non-sensical as asserting that one should *always* put several
classes in a same file. Not only because Python doesn't requires you to
use classes, but mostly because it's arbitrary and dogmatic. You seem to
have (dis)missed the point where I said that I *almost* never had a
single class in a file - which implies that I *sometimes* do this - when
it makes sens from either a practical or logical POV.
FWIW, I would certainly not try to apply this "preferred style" when
writing GUIs in C++. You see, the fact that some idiom (style, whatever)
works well with a given (class of) language(s) doesn't mean it's the
more effective in some other context. Here again, it seems that you
(dis)missed the point where I asked you if your thousands-lines-long
classes were written in Python.
Obviously, we don't have the same sense of humor.
I came to this conclusion from my own experience, and it seems that
quite a few other programmers (most of them either better and/or more
experimented than me) came to the same conclusion. But feel free to
believe it's an a priori if that makes you feel better.
Then don't. But I'd still be interested if you could let us know about
any book advocating monster classes as good design.
So let's rephrase your previous assertion :
"what works well for almost anyone having some real world experience
with languages like Python isn't necessarily what works well for
everyone" (implied : "... when using a Python-like language" - this
seemed obvious but it may be better to state it more explicitly, just in
case...).
Nope, just stating a fact - from which you may or not derive some
conclusions.
The fact that a in a given context a significant majority of
experimented users usually favors one approach over the other might be
taken as an indication that there might be some reason for this.
About "proofs", I'm afraid that "proving" things learned from experience
can be sometimes difficult - or at least above my own skills, specially
in a language I'm not very fluent with. But I think I did tried (perhaps
unsuccessfully, but that's another problem) to back my POV, instead of
just resorting to rethoric like you're doing here.
If it was only *my* "preferred style", I wouldn't even argue. Now I'm
not presenting it as a "universal truth", but as the result of
experience (and not only my own) with a given class of languages.
Asserting that one should *always* only put one class per file is just
as non-sensical as asserting that one should *always* put several
classes in a same file. Not only because Python doesn't requires you to
use classes, but mostly because it's arbitrary and dogmatic. You seem to
have (dis)missed the point where I said that I *almost* never had a
single class in a file - which implies that I *sometimes* do this - when
it makes sens from either a practical or logical POV.
FWIW, I would certainly not try to apply this "preferred style" when
writing GUIs in C++. You see, the fact that some idiom (style, whatever)
works well with a given (class of) language(s) doesn't mean it's the
more effective in some other context. Here again, it seems that you
(dis)missed the point where I asked you if your thousands-lines-long
classes were written in Python.