Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6857
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best |
| Date | 2016-07-28 12:26 +0100 |
| Organization | Origin Sonata |
| Message-ID | <nncq59$4h2$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <MPG.3201e5fd52ec5da798a3cc@news.eternal-september.org> <nn9mps$69j$1@dont-email.me> <nna0vm$629$1@dont-email.me> <nnah8t$10j$1@dont-email.me> <MPG.3203adb636c7769898a3db@news.eternal-september.org> |
On 28/07/16 11:51, J. Clarke wrote: > In article <nnah8t$10j$1@dont-email.me>, rjh@cpax.org.uk says... >> <snip> >> >> In other words, if the program spec doesn't call for an installer, it's >> reasonable to ask whether one is required. But it is /not/ reasonable to >> /assume/ that one is required. That's just sloppy thinking. > > In other words you're talking about a single-customer single-use > souurce-code library, not a standalone application. What? No! You're missing the whole point of my argument! I'm talking about the fact that there's more than one use case. For some use cases, an installer is very definitely the right way to go. For others, it's a waste of time. And it's important to find out which, /before/ you write the installer. And the use case can depend just as much on the /user/ as it does on the nature of the program. > And you wouldn't provide a makefile with this source code? If that's appropriate, yes. But not if it isn't. It depends on the circumstances. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 07:24 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 13:42 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-26 13:23 +0000
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-26 14:51 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:29 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 16:53 +0200
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 15:41 +0200
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2016-07-26 10:08 -0700
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Ant" <not@home.today> - 2016-07-26 19:50 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-26 14:32 -0500
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 22:26 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Kaz Kylheku <349-534-5780@kylheku.com> - 2016-07-27 03:57 +0000
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:21 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:43 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:12 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:40 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:10 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 11:04 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 14:05 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 18:21 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 18:56 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:51 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:26 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-27 19:51 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-27 22:37 -0500
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:28 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:54 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:53 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-28 08:38 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2016-07-27 05:52 -0700
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 06:48 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 12:21 +0100
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-07-28 08:47 -0400
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Randy Howard <rhoward.mx@EverybodyUsesIt.com> - 2016-07-28 16:13 -0500
Re: To hell with the program spec - I know what's best Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 22:38 +0100
csiph-web