James Edward Gray II wrote: > On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 05:15 PM, R. Joseph Newton wrote: > > > Your script had almost 100 lines of incomprehesible scripting garbage > > before the first subroutine definition. > > Egad, is that called for? I personally consider it offensive and > outside the realm of constructive criticism. >
Sorry, that was probably a bit harsh. The point is that the scripting that works just fine on single-pupose, quick and dirty tasks will soon lead to confusion when specifications grow more complicated. Unfortunately, there is rarely a hint on this list that there is any problem with this. You don't seem to like the word garbage. Sorry. I know garbage all too well, and how it cxomes to be. I spend my vacation time as a volunteer recycler, and see tons of potentially valuable, recoverable material go to a landfilll, for one simple reason--it was jnot sorted out. The valuabvle products of the human mind can similarly become garbage by the same means. I'm sticking with my guns here. Extended passages of sequential code are the breeding grounds for errors. They become progressively more difficult to debug. As needs change, such code becomes more and more difficult to adapt to those needs. Eventually, such code will end up having to be re-written from the start, because the lack of separation between functional elements will make for unintended side effects of any changes. In short, it becomes garbage. Joseph -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
