Real quick: > From: "Guglielmetti, Robert" <robert.guglielme...@nrel.gov> > Date: March 22, 2016 9:37:46 AM PDT > > Eh, I respectfully disagree, here. Languages like Python and Ruby are > making it easy for meatheads like me to write functional cross-platform > programs that can leverage Radiance tools well, and offer users niceties > like command line help, threading, queuing, etc. One could write these > with minimal library support and blow off making functions where they make > sense and leave one with a very linear, readable (and maintainable) > program. On the other hand, wrapping a few redundant bits into a function > here and there makes it cleaner, easier to maintain, and IMO does not come > anywhere close to the price of admission of writing the same shit in C or > C++.(!)
I wasn't arguing against defining your own functions or encapsulation -- just heavy reliance on add-on libraries. The former just keeps the code neat, moving repeated or complicated calls to another part of the script. The latter means you have to go learn about some library you never heard of and study it to figure out what the script is even doing. Arguments about obviousness notwithstanding, you can't debug a program you don't fully understand. -G _______________________________________________ Radiance-dev mailing list Radiance-dev@radiance-online.org http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
