Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #3633
| From | Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.programming, alt.food |
| Subject | Re: [OT] engineering |
| Date | 2013-07-16 21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8761wai616.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <hsi3ba-va22.ln1@anubis.morrow.me.uk> <87li5coi6v.fsf@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <874nc0w72t.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> <877ggw2gnk.fsf_-_@sapphire.mobileactivedefense.com> <87mwpouk89.fsf_-_@violet.siamics.net> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes: >>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes: > > [...] > > >>> When people can't have multiple disjunct sets of variables used by > >>> unrelated parts of the same 'aggregate subroutine', they do what > >>> they should be doing instead, namely, structure their code. > > >> I disagree. I deem the use of nested scopes as crucial to code > >> structuring. Should the "roles" of the variables (whether input, > >> output, or local) become apparent later, it'd be trivial to split > >> the function, -- and that's likely to be done exactly along the > >> scope boundaries previously coded in. > > > To quote my boss: Make it work now quickly and clean it up later :-). > > Which means: Take some existing code which performs a more-or-less > > related task, copy'n'paste it to some part of the countryside where > > no trenches have been dug yet or the old ones worn out over time, > > create a new nested scope lest all hell breaks lose because any > > accidental interaction with the surrounings, any details about them > > long lost in the land of ancient lore, > > [...] > > ... Once, I will find the patience to wait for the food > engineers out there to design a sound nutritional solution. > > Meanwhile, I'm forced to rely on the off-the-shelf products, > which are known to be full of undocumented features, deviate > from the specifications every now and then, and (while I'm yet > to see one myself) are reported to contain actual bugs... Minus some obvious misconceptions (eg, the 'off the shelf' food is designed by 'food engineers' to be 'soundly nutrirional', ie, contain everything fashion currently demands that it should and not contain anything fashion demands that it currently mustn't, while less sophisticated people like me get by somehow with vegetables, meat, spices and tools to prepare these in some completely 'unscientific' way), I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-15 11:37 +0000
Re: [OT] engineering Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-07-16 21:49 +0100
Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-17 09:27 +0000
Re: [OT] engineering Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-07-17 15:53 +0100
Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-22 10:36 +0000
Re: [OT] engineering Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2013-07-23 06:43 -0400
Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-22 10:38 +0000
Re: [OT] engineering Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-07-26 10:09 +0100
csiph-web