> Patterns came from the recognition of common idioms, practices in the > industry. Religously following and applying patterns could condemn > you not to discovering future oversights and other intuitions.
Back when I was a young programmer we used to have to think. THINK! Oh the humanity. No patterns for us. Just endless cups of tea, a pad of paper (or the back of long listings on greenbar) and your flowchart stencil. We had it rough I tell you, but I think that we wrote better code back in those days. And those of us that came through them, still have a tendency to do so. When was the last time you had to worry about memory efficiency? I have 1.5 Gb of RAM on my machine at home. Goodness, how do you use all of that up? (Photoshop is the only thing that comes close to using that much memory) My first computer had 1K, yes, that's 1024 bytes. To get anything worthwhile to work in that, you had to think hard and squeeze harder. It made us think. Many programmers today don't even know that computers used to be that small. > I wonder, if they will get over the dessert dunes onto > lambda functions and tuples next? We can only hope. Perhaps the prophesied return of Lisp will finally happen and people will discover REAL programming, not this Teach Yourself The Latest Junk in 24 Hours stuff. Real, worthwhile, programming is hard, so if your going to do it, study for it, and learn (LEARN I say) to do it well. > Well done, Craig, with restrospect. A simpler designed framework > like Struts is exactly the example, the proof, which Simon espouses > above. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you Craig. Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
