Re: The narcissism of small code differences
I never thought I'd be saying this but welcome back Rick :) On 11/11/2013 06:50, Rick Johnson wrote: On Saturday, November 9, 2013 6:42:04 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Uses an example written in Ruby, but don't let that put you off: Why would it? I write Ruby code all the time. Ruby code in and of itself does not bother me, what bothers me about Ruby is the ease at which a programmer can write inconsistent and convoluted code -- evidenced by the poor examples in your linked article. Case in point. To save anyone else from reading this long-winded blab fest chalk full the driest humor and cyclic illogical meandering that could make a ferris-wheel blush with jealousy... In a nutshell the author attempts to plead for the longevity of old code bases simply on the basis of his assertion that old code bases are less buggy and contain more wisdom than their new brethren -- both of which are absurd conclusions! I recall that the demise of Netscape was due to them trying to completely rewrite code of this nature. The exception that proves the rule? -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The narcissism of small code differences
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Mark Lawrence breamore...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On 11/11/2013 06:50, Rick Johnson wrote: In a nutshell the author attempts to plead for the longevity of old code bases simply on the basis of his assertion that old code bases are less buggy and contain more wisdom than their new brethren -- both of which are absurd conclusions! I recall that the demise of Netscape was due to them trying to completely rewrite code of this nature. The exception that proves the rule? No, I would say Netscape's experience is a strong supporting example of the contrary position. I've frequently had need to reimplement something (most recently as part of porting functionality from RosMud, written in C++, to Gypsum, written in Pike), and referencing the old code is the best way to benefit from X years of corner-case discoveries and bug fixes. Sometimes I'll even copy and paste a comment from one version to another, because it perfectly explains some oddity that the code has to handle - even if the code itself is completely rewritten. Definitely if hunks of code can be kept, they should be. The old code base *IS* less buggy and contains more wisdom. Hardly absurd. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The narcissism of small code differences
On Saturday, November 9, 2013 6:42:04 AM UTC-6, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Uses an example written in Ruby, but don't let that put you off: Why would it? I write Ruby code all the time. Ruby code in and of itself does not bother me, what bothers me about Ruby is the ease at which a programmer can write inconsistent and convoluted code -- evidenced by the poor examples in your linked article. Case in point. To save anyone else from reading this long-winded blab fest chalk full the driest humor and cyclic illogical meandering that could make a ferris-wheel blush with jealousy... In a nutshell the author attempts to plead for the longevity of old code bases simply on the basis of his assertion that old code bases are less buggy and contain more wisdom than their new brethren -- both of which are absurd conclusions! Now, whilst he is correct regarding the narcissism of programmers (i must admit we are all guilty of this deadly sin), his attempts to draw parallels between Freudian pathologies and software development idiosyncrasies is, in fact, the very HEIGHT of sophistry! Has the author considered that new functionality often renders old code bases useless, or at the very least, antiquated? Even code bases that are in fact bug free (for *some* definition of bug free!) Has the author consider that changes in external dependencies can render a code base useless? Py3000 ring a bell folks? Is the author also unaware of evolution? Doth he falsely believe that even the BEST programmer can look back on code he wrote a few years ago and not think of some way it could be improved? GvR had such a realization not so long ago -- and then there was Py3000!!! From something as simple as code restructuring for readabilities sake; to choosing better naming conventions; to improving consistency; reformulating algorithms to eliminate bottlenecks; taking advantage of new functionality in external libraries; or implementing new design patterns, and on and on -- the list is limitless man! The fact is, no code base will ever be perfect. Code will constantly need updating and upgrading. The challenge is to remove the old crusty bits and inject consistency everywhere we can. That's not narcissism, that's altruism. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The narcissism of small code differences
Uses an example written in Ruby, but don't let that put you off: http://raganwald.com/2008/05/narcissism-of-small-code-differences.html -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: The narcissism of small code differences
On 09/11/2013 12:42, Steven D'Aprano wrote: Uses an example written in Ruby, but don't let that put you off: http://raganwald.com/2008/05/narcissism-of-small-code-differences.html Wonderful read, thanks very much for the link. -- Python is the second best programming language in the world. But the best has yet to be invented. Christian Tismer Mark Lawrence -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
