On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:00 PM, David Diggles <da...@elven.com.au> wrote: > What is wrong with an example of how bad spaghetti scripting looks like? > I think there can be value in seeing an exagerrated example of what not to do.
I don't think it's obvious to everyone that that was bad code. Indeed, there was that person in the past that wrote that code and decided it was the best they could do at that moment. What's to say some other person won't look at your code and say "huh, looks better than some of my other scripts; I don't get what the problem is". > Furthermore, I provided my own script, not someone elses, because I am > happy to own my own mistakes. Another good thing to teach. True. > IMO, a teaching method that only ever teaches what to do, and never what not > to > do, and only ever provides instructions and guidance, risks creating the kind > of > box that breeds idiots with no ability to think for themselves. In my experience as a student and teacher, the discussions of about what made something (a program, a work of art, a mathematical proof, a piece of music) better or worse were the most valuable part of reviewing the existing works. If just seeing the bad stuff without thinking about and recognizing what made it bad was enough to let you create good stuff, then Sturgeon's law would be false. Philip Guenther
