«

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, The Spanish Inquisition wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>
> > So you gave up soon, and now create code that's hard to maintain
> > for others. Yes, MIME::Lite takes like 10 minutes to understand,
> > and yes, I know reading doesn't look productive, but pressing all
> > those keys the whole day looks like a lot is going on. But no
> > serious programmer should do what you did.
>
> Sure, so I'm not a serious programmer. That didn't you take long to
> figure out, did it? I guess ten of thousands of satisfied users and
> mainatinable systems that run for years on years don't count. No, my
> less-than-dogmatic stance on reuse of modules dequalifies me
> completely.

Your apparent unwillingness to step right up and discuss the
substantive issues raised by John B does rather convey a message, you
know.

If you've been so widely active as you say, one wonders how many
maintenance programmers are cursing your name in the meantime (or
maybe they just tossed the code out and started again, as so often
happens with hand-knitted code).

> > Yes, you created hard to maintain code, not a big deal if it's
> > your tool, but a big deal if others have to maintain it. Moreover,
> > you missed an opertunity to learn a new module, a big loss IMNSHO.
>
> You can't learn everything as every programmer knows...

No disagreement there. However, using that as an excuse for publicly
refusing to learn more seems to me to be a sub-optimal way to proceed.

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, The Spanish Inquisition wrote:
>
>>John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>>So you gave up soon, and now create code that's hard to maintain
>>>for others. Yes, MIME::Lite takes like 10 minutes to understand,
>>>and yes, I know reading doesn't look productive, but pressing all
>>>those keys the whole day looks like a lot is going on. But no
>>>serious programmer should do what you did.
>>
>>Sure, so I'm not a serious programmer. That didn't you take long to
>>figure out, did it? I guess ten of thousands of satisfied users and
>>mainatinable systems that run for years on years don't count. No, my
>>less-than-dogmatic stance on reuse of modules dequalifies me
>>completely.
>
> Your apparent unwillingness to step right up and discuss the
> substantive issues raised by John B does rather convey a message, you
> know.

Oh yes? What message is that? That I suck at my job?

> If you've been so widely active as you say, one wonders how many
> maintenance programmers are cursing your name in the meantime (or
> maybe they just tossed the code out and started again, as so often
> happens with hand-knitted code).

One wonders, but one doesn't know, does one? Tossing code out and
starting over again can be a very healthy approach in my experience. One
learns, doesn't one?

>>>Yes, you created hard to maintain code, not a big deal if it's
>>>your tool, but a big deal if others have to maintain it. Moreover,
>>>you missed an opertunity to learn a new module, a big loss IMNSHO.
>>
>>You can't learn everything as every programmer knows...
>
> No disagreement there. However, using that as an excuse for publicly
> refusing to learn more seems to me to be a sub-optimal way to proceed.

Where did I publicly refuse to learn? When faced with a problem I once
chose a simple homebrew solution instead of an available canned one. How
is that "Publicly refusing to learn"?

Or is refusing to agree with a fundamentalist application of principles
'refusing to learn'. What do you want me to do? Confess? Repent?

I for one wouldn't hire a programmer who demonstrates such rigidity as I
meet here. I rather work with flexible people. But then again, I don't
have to go begging for Perl jobs on the web, quite the contrary actually.

Ximinez
--
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope....
http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/paulfitz/spanish/t1.html

The Spanish Inquisition wrote:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
>> Your apparent unwillingness to step right up and discuss the
>> substantive issues raised by John B does rather convey a message, you
>> know.
>
> Oh yes? What message is that? That I suck at my job?

No: that what you did, copy the source of a Thunderbird email message
and tweaking, is something I certainly wouldn't recommend if others have
to maintain the code at a point in time.

As I stated: spending one hour, or even two, at studying MIME::Lite will
give you the knowledge for not only solving the specific problem you
had, but will also give you something that might come in handy in the
feature.

I admit that not all CPAN modules are perfect, but as I stated, they get
better if people use them, instead of making up their own stuff.

At one time I was working on a Perl application that had 600+ (!) hand
coded Perl modules. About 6 people had been working on it, after each
other. Quite a lot of modules had code that was redundant, either
because someone else had added the code to another module, or worse, it
was a copy paste job.

Because everything was programmed in a hurry (since programming =
pressing keys must have been the impression they, or at least the
manager had) there was *zero* documentation.

Now I claim that a lot of those modules could have been replaced by CPAN
stuff. Yes, in some cases a wrapper would have been required.

Oh, I was replacing a programmer who gave up after 3 months, who
replaced a programmer who gave up after 3 months. I "left" them after a
similar time (I got fired, for non-related things, if you want to know,
email me). Anyway, I was already looking around for a different job.

If a module does x% of what you want, it might save you time. If it's a
well known module, and I think I can say that about MIME::Lite, you
might make your code easier to maintain, since there is a probability
that other programmers understand a part of your code, because they have
seen it before.

>> If you've been so widely active as you say, one wonders how many
>> maintenance programmers are cursing your name in the meantime (or
>> maybe they just tossed the code out and started again, as so often
>> happens with hand-knitted code).
>
> One wonders, but one doesn't know, does one? Tossing code out and
> starting over again can be a very healthy approach in my experience.
> One learns, doesn't one?

If you can toss out a CPAN module, and replace it by better code, please
do so. You benefit, and maybe I benefit. And if your code is better, the
person who is going to maintain your code might have already seen it.


> Or is refusing to agree with a fundamentalist application of
> principles 'refusing to learn'.

I consider "my code is better than yours (CPAN)" quite a
fundamentalistic view

> What do you want me to do? Confess? Repent?
>
> I for one wouldn't hire a programmer who demonstrates such rigidity as
> I meet here.

And I wouldn't hire a programmer who says: I copied the source of an
email and tweaked it a bit, because it was faster then reading CPAN
documentation Especially since I might have to maintain that code.

> I rather work with flexible people.

Me too. And going to CPAN, picking a module, and taking the time to
learn it is what I call fexible. Copy and pasting something and tweaking
until it works, is not programming in my book.

I know Perl is often used to write run once programs. But I started to
keep those "run once" scripts, and notice that I often re use them,
because I forced myself to even code what I consider run once code in
such a way that I still can read it after 2 months.

> But then again, I don't
> have to go begging for Perl jobs on the web, quite the contrary
> actually.

I have to do that, for several reasons.

--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
Happy Customers: http://castleamber.com/testimonials.html

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, The Spanish Inquisition wrote:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
> > Your apparent unwillingness to step right up and discuss the
> > substantive issues raised by John B does rather convey a message,
> > you know.
>
> Oh yes? What message is that? That I suck at my job?

So you prove incapable of discussing substantive issues without
reacting to them as a personal affront. Bye.

In article <. ac.uk>,
Alan J. Flavell <> wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, The Spanish Inquisition wrote:
>
>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>>
>> > Your apparent unwillingness to step right up and discuss the
>> > substantive issues raised by John B does rather convey a message,
>> > you know.
>>
>> Oh yes? What message is that? That I suck at my job?
>
>So you prove incapable of discussing substantive issues without
>reacting to them as a personal affront. Bye.

It does seem that you guys are attacking him.

And he's not saying that others should do the email-thing the way
he does, only that he found that it worked for him.

Besides, two hours of hard concentration on something (Mime::Lite?)
during a packed-full day of putting out fires, is a lot to ask.

(Do you have two hours available to learn some package that, say,
because of your particular work, you might well never use again?)

Looks like a one-sided religious war starting-up.


David