Re: The Great Module Debate :) [was Re: solutions to scripting
Re: The Great Module Debate :) [was Re: solutions to scripting
- Subject: Re: The Great Module Debate :) [was Re: solutions to scripting
- From: has <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:37:12 +0000
Nigel Garvey wrote:
>
>Nigel Garvey wrote a rather ripping response...
>
>
>
>[Hi Nigel, fancy seeing you here...;]
>
>
>
>Hope you'll forgive me here, but I've decided not to write a direct
>
>response to your post.
>
>
That's OK. Nor I to your "indirect" one. :-) I've no intention of getting
>
into an argument. I was just pointing out that the use of modular code
>
shouldn't be a dogma - especially where loaded libraries are concerned -
>
and taking you to task for your suggestion that people who want to learn
>
or understand some technique in AppleScript should told instead to use
>
such-and-such a handler from such-and-such a library.
I get the feeling the example I used carried more meaning for some(?) folks
than it was really meant to. Careless Words Cost Lives, and all that.
OK, here's the real deal re. the learning/using argument:
1. You do not have to know how something works in order to use it.
Applications and osaxen already teach us that; there's no reason to look at
pre-written modular AS code any differently.
2. Using someone else's code does not preclude learning for those who want
to. For those that simply want to get the job done, it's an advantage if
they don't have to. For those that are worried about being blinded with
science, it's an advantage if they don't have to. For those who want to
learn more, there's nothing to stop them lifting the lid and looking
(closed-source libraries notwithstanding).
3. Loadable libraries also function as a well-organised repository for
knowledge and wisdom. Why dig through chaotic mailing list archives to
learn stuff when you can get it all in cleaned-up, condensed form from a
convenient online archive?
4. And finally: For those who want to learn more, seek clarification, etc,
all they have to do is mail the author or post to a list like this, and
they shall receive due enlightenment.
But loadable libraries aren't some fob-off for novices (if that was the
case, a simple "Bog Off!" would suffice:) - they're a useful tool for any
scripter, novice and expert alike. And modular coding (good use of
handlers, etc) is a valuable technique for managing complexity, and one I
think would benefit folks to become comfortable with long before they
absolutely require it (by which point it's probably already spaghetti city
and fixed habits aplenty).
>
My own view is that "re-inventing the wheel" is the best way to come up
>
with a better wheel, or even of coming up with something else entirely.
Hell yeah; I'm eagerly waiting for you to design the first antigravity
wheel or something. I figure at the rate you go, it won't be long.<g> In
many respects, I think we're both a minority within the AS community as a
whole. But that's cool.
>
Many scripters, however, are understandably only concerned with getting
>
their scripts from A to B before some deadine. I hope there's room for
>
all sorts on this list.
Sure... even for the ones who post bits of <gasp> VBS, language of the Evil
Empire though it may be... ;)
Cheers,
has