On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 08:55:26PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-10-30 18:34, Brad Roberts wrote: > > >I'm all for idealistic views, but neither of those matches reality in > >any meaningful way. What I outlined is actually practical. > > Well yes, for an already existing tool. But I see no reason why one > wouldn't use this approach when developing a new tool. Lately, all > my tools I write are built as libraries and a fairly thin executable > that calls the library. Except that one can use the library in other > tools it separates and modularize the code, easier to test and so > on. [...]
I have recently come to the conclusion that *all* programs should be written as (potential) libraries with thin executable wrappers. Any other approach will suffer from reusability issues down the road. T -- One Word to write them all, One Access to find them, One Excel to count them all, And thus to Windows bind them. -- Mike Champion
