On Sunday, Jul 27, 2003, at 20:03 US/Pacific, Todd W. wrote:
[..]"Drieux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]But First off - COOL RANT!
I was hoping that _some_ day I could string a few sentences together as well as you do =0)
flattery will get you out of some problems, but practice and perceverance is a better strategy....
[..]
I agree, as long as you agree that the more one understands the CS theory, the less voodoo there is in the implementation.
IF and only IF 'understanding the technical stuff' from comp-sci really is useful for the 'implementation phase'.
May I recommend "Real Genius" (1984) as an alternative study in the problems of 'science v. technology'. Given that basically most of the current 'academic work' in "computer science" is running anywhere up to a decade back of there the 'technology' is in industry - the New Guy on the block may be better served to 'get a gig' and hang with the BigGeek, Buy the Books, read them, rather than eat them, and do their own 'experimentation'.
Given some of the stuff that we have seen come out of the academic discussions about this, that and the next thing, I am also not at all sure that some of the 'implementation' is really worth the candel.
One might argue that the Java adoption of 'templates', which they call 'generics' in the hope that most folks are not going to notice the absorption of the C++ effort to work around the problems and unpleasantries of the 'multi-pel klass inheritence' model that was suppose to be fixed in 'java' with it's extends and implements, efforts to keep Java out of the FoxWorthy set of jokes about 'family trees with more than one loop in them'....
Uh, well, establishes that some academic debates, when they get to the implementation phase, do not always add 'value' in the way that everyone was hoping they could/should/would....
In like manner, the fact that one CAN make PHP stand alone 'scripts' that are not specifically used to create HTML web-pages, would establish that... one SHOULD implement things that way?
Or would it be simpler to restore the kinder, gentler, more simpler
'strongly typed v. weakly typed'
computer language academic debates in this space and decide that we should always follow the Ivory Tower....
[..]
I think that most languages are supportive of MVC as a design pattern,[..]
as well as many other techno-babble-phrases...
would it be impolite of me to raise the scary support for the phrase 'refactoring' rather than 'recoding' since the former sounds less threatening to both other coders and mangelment.
while they are, mostly, dealing with the reality of needing to 'recode'.... Either because they did not start with any design pattern save 'the big ball of mud'
I had this glob of code,
and I globulate more code on it....or as a part of the naturual selection, they have come back to the code and gone
"YEEWWWW, that so smells, if my professional peers
were to peek at that, they would make rude noises
in my direction and ask me if my mommy dresses me funny...." drieux to UnterStumpenFumbler
c. 2003, all rights reserved{ yes, you will have to formally cite that with full legal
attribution, since, well, yes, I am the author of it,
and I plan to defend my IP, even if my mommy does dress me funny... }But as I believe it was Ovid noted, there are 'meme drifts' where a 'token' started out actually exporting meaningful content and simply decays into the 'KultBuzzPhraseDuJure'....
So you will forgive me if I do not opt to jump onto the new band wagon that 'all developers' should wax their surfBoards, because <foo> is the Next Big Wave that will solve all problems end to end, as I will counter, your counter to my counter below...
{ not that I am being merely contrarian... }
[..]
p4: given that hacking in perl does not require MVC as a design pattern, but one can learn the hard way to support it....
We have AxKit, but I wouldnt like to call it the canonical perl
I so love the fact that slowly but surely the One True Perl Orthodoxy is finally being able to create the canonical perl <yourPhraseHere>.
<insertThingiePooHere>
MVC pattern. Most familiar with it probably would though. ASP.NET has MVC with its "code behind" concept.
Im not aware of any other MVC based platforms right off.
You will forgive me the comedy of giggling at you, nothing personal you understand, but we have watched
UML - universal modelling language
evolve from the academic discussions about the need to have a common 'tokenization system' to the supposed automation of
'write it in UML,
turn the crank
and out comes code....'Without always pausing to answer the question,
Ok, so this idea can be discussed in an 'OO'
manner, does that mean that it MUST be implemented in
<insertIdeologicallyKorrektThingiePooHere>and hence also by extension, the fact that 'foo' implements the 'bar' canonical orthodox KultBuzzPhraseDuJure that one MUST use the 'foo' to bar?
Or can one drink alone? Or drink in the company of a few select friends....
So barring of course the places where you have so clearly
Aligned Yourself With False Gods, Idolators, Apostate Spawns
of the Burning Sulphoruous Pits of Geheanna where the damned are committed,
we so completely agree.
ciao drieux
---
note: ThingiePoo[RPM] is a RegisteredPsychoticMoment of the DPK - DrieuxishPhraseKit, and is used under license in it formal technical specification in compliance with the requirements of the DPK licensing agreement, and all appropriate safety precautions should be followed.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
