[SATLUG] Re: culture question (Bruce Dubbs)

Robert Pearson e2eiod at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 01:02:42 CDT 2008

On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Jason Meridth <jmeridth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Leading with this:  I was a jackass earlier and allowed my passion for my
> "current" coding standards to allow me to perfectly emulate the
> characteristics that Bruce mentioned (immature, arrogant, egotistical,
> etc).
> I apologize.
> I normally would not apologize for my passion but after reading my own
> responses to Bruce, they were unfair and I took his responses way too
> personal.  I will give a person the benefit of the doubt that they were not
> attacking me personally, especially over an emotionless medium such as
> email.
> Borries
> 1. You are correct about single vs. mutliple or even maintenance
> programmers.  When you use words like, "may" and "but not necessarily", it
> shows situational circumstance.  I agree completely.
> David
> 1. I'm chilling  ;)
> 2. Agreed that a lazy programmer is a non-committed programmer.
> Bruce
> 1. Your 2nd response was professional
> 2. Your 1st response used words like egotistical, and an implied assumption
> that I thought I was a genius.  Those led me to taking it personal.  I
> apologize.
> 3. You sound like you've done your research and I'd actually like to read
> your thesis.  Google has proved unfriendly to me.  Can you send me in the
> right direction.
> 4. I want to avoid a flame war.
> Alan
> 1. I understand your approach
> 2. I don't want a flame war.
> I would love to contribute to this group and maybe, with help from the "grey
> beards" learn a few things and maybe teach a few?
> I learn from my mistakes and this one will be immortalized in the SATLUG
> archives.
> --
> ---
> Jason Meridth
> "There is no spoon"
> --

The original goal was to have "self-documenting" code to free
programmers from what was regarded
as "trivial house-keeping" rather  than programming. The new
programmer environments,
specifically "gaming", practice minimum to "no" documentation for fear
of having the code easily stolen.
There are instances where the documentation is deliberately incorrect
so as to be misleading.

Some "self-documenting" progress has been made in JAVA.
The most impressive "self-documenting" tool I have seen lately, other
than my own, is XDoclet.

Using variable names and standard structures correctly is not only
good programming but a real help in
"self-documentation". But it is not everything.

The new Perl 6 Parrot is the wave of the future for programming. It
has "error correction",
"self-documentation", "test suites" and "portability" built into it.
Basically you come up with a basic algorithm,
type it into the input and the Parrot produces finished code to the
Perl standards.
The most powerful feature is that you can easily customize it to the
"The Standards Required for Your Code".
This removes a great deal of not really "creative programming" effort
from really creative programmers.

All the new language development structures will have these features.
They can be added to "legacy" languages
if the need can be cost justified.

The bottom line has always been to increase the number of lines of
working, "tested", easily modifiable,
and maintainable code.
Think in terms of structure and flow "At a Glance". Some pages in
books do not yield their true meaning "At a Glance".
Sometimes it takes 3 passes and some thinking.


More information about the SATLUG mailing list