forgot reply-all again .
--- Begin Message ---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A good article, thanks for the link. IMO, It depends on the type of
application -- and the type of user. It also depends on how those items are
included.
Agreed. I'd just read the article yesterday so it was fresh in my mind.
Rereading my post, I made a hasty generalization. I would limit the context
for my comment to framework-type applications where the point of the tool
or library is to help me accomplish a certain programming task by making my
life easier. Its in those cases that I often find myself wishing the tool's
creator had added a few options or provided a facade (and access to the
underlying library) instead of forcing me toward what they felt was "the
right way" -- thus forcing me to modify the code, seek a workaround, or
abandon the tool in order to accomplish my task.
Thats true too and thats one of the benefits of open source - you *do*
have access to the underlying code. If people are using ardous
workaround then its definately somthing to be fixed.
If the right fix is to add an option then well and good. I think the
article is saying that that often adding the option is taking the easy
way out.
I would even limit the context further by saying that adding such options
also requires feedback from users asking for a behavior change, or
lamenting an arduous workaround.
BTW, if it wasn't obvious, I wasn't faulting NAnt on this score. I think
NAnt generally strikes a great balance on this topic.
Ugh, email is such a difficult medium of expression for nuances :-(
I think you're doing pretty well :)
Ian
--- End Message ---
