Re: Idea mangling test (was Re: Character mangling test)
Re: Idea mangling test (was Re: Character mangling test)
- Subject: Re: Idea mangling test (was Re: Character mangling test)
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:32:24 EST
In a message dated 2/19/01 11:53:13 PM, Paul Berkowitz wrote:
<snip>
>
Of course what Nigel demonstrated is that a well-structured long line can be
>
a lot clearer than a set of interlinked short lines devised purely to avoid
>
long lines.
No, he demonstrated that deliberately making a script confusing yet
functional results in a confusing, functional script.
>
Sometimes the only way you might be able to turn a good long
>
line into short lines is by defining each component as a variable.
Yes, yes, yes!!! That is exactly it! Variables are good! Variables are how
you build reusable code! I have found that almost every time I hard code data
(eg. strings) into a script I have to go back and change it to a
variable-centric form to add function/flexibility/features. Yes! You have hit
the nail on the head.
>
The resulting construct could be so obfuscated as to be incomprehensible.
Operative word = could. For good design substitute there is not.
>
Nigel
>
demonstrated this a lot better, and in a much more entertaining fashion,
>
than this boring explanation of mine. I _hope_ (and think) that you must
>
have got his point, Jeff, but your reply sure doesn't indicate it. So that's
>
why I'm spelling it out here, dull as it is.
We might have to agree to disagree. I saw Nigel's post as an obfuscripted
applescate wannabe, clever as it was.
I note that no one has taken me up on my challenge.
Jeff Baumann
email@hidden
www.linkedresources.com
11 Days, 19 Hours, 21 Minutes
How is it going to end?