On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 5:13 AM vitalije <vitali...@gmail.com> wrote: If you, a rather clever, smart, experienced developer and also the author > of this code, after 15 hours of intense study do not fully understand the > code, shouldn't that tell you something about the quality of the code? If > you cant fully understand the code, what chances to understand it will have > the rest of us. >
I wondered whether you might say something like this. Now what I really don't understand is your decision not to fix this code > even after you yourself had learned that it is far from being readable and > maintainable code. Why don't you make it simple and readable? > I would be happy to make the code simpler if I knew how to do this without damaging Leo. I do not want to make Leo's users change their settings files, and I do not want to inflict subtle changes on now Leo handles settings. This seems virtually impossible. > I could help if you need any help. > Hmm. First, you, Vitalije, have got to convince me that you understand the issues involved. I don't understand the code well enough to have any confidence in any real >> changes to the code. >> > > That is precisely why the real changes are necessary. I would say I don't > have any confidence that it works correctly at all in its current state. > That should be well enough reason to refactor this code, no matter how much > time and effort will it take. But I guess, you'll prefer to leave this code > as it is. > This seems to be the root of our disagreement. This would be no ordinary refactoring. > I am tempted to put aside all my current tasks and write my own > launchLeo.py which will monkey patch completely configuration code and > just read settings from the database table. I guess it would greatly reduce > number of code lines that has to be executed every time Leo opens new > commander. > To gain my approval, you would have to convince me of the following: Requirement 1. That users presently are suffering from configuration related bugs, that can *not* be fixed by small changes to the present code base. Requirement 2. That you have a solid plan to avoid any proposed refactoring from introducing changes, of any kind, in how users perceive Leo's settings. I would discourage you from this attempt, unless you have a clear plan for meeting requirement 2. *Summary* Your desire to mess with Leo's settings machinery strikes me as misguided and dangerous. This is *NOT* primarily a code issue. It's a management issue involving Leo's stability. You have not demonstrated anywhere near the required understanding of Leo's configuration code. Insulting comments about the code's quality shows engineering immaturity. Yes, the code is difficult. That in no way proves that it could be simplified safely. If you do have a plan for meeting requirement 2, and can convince me of the plan's simplicity and soundness, then I shall naturally be interested. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/leo-editor/CAMF8tS1qvEa4sGN5B8nsXp_7qzyD1LeDD3c%3DowA%2BTaaLEZ0mkg%40mail.gmail.com.
