|
|
Posted by Chung Leong on 12/23/05 10:40
Oli Filth wrote:
> In the 21st Century, where programming is as much about team-based
> development and code maintenance planning as it is about knocking out
> lines of code, aesthetics *are* massively important, IMO. Code that's
> more consistent and easier to read is easier to understand, and easier
> to hand over to another team member.
Put two fellows in a room thinking aesthetics are massively important
and you will see how productive that is. Office politics is detrimental
as it is. The last thing I would want to do is to inject more
subjective issues into the mix. Tolerance for different approaches and
the acceptance that different people think differently are what makes a
productive team.
As I said before, computer languages are not unlike human languages.
Speak in a straight forward manner and to the point--you will be
understood. It's not that hard. Pepper your speech with the latest
buzzwards and citations then neither the computer or your colleagues
will understand you.
> It's not a matter of trying to "convert" people, no-one's going to go
> "oh, I've seen the light, PHP is better than C++, what have I been doing
> all these years". But a large user-base (and incoming users with skills
> and techniques from a different language) will benefit the PHP community
> and existing users. A more focused language with better OO support and
> less inconsistency will benefit existing users doing new development.
>
> Umm, if you were trying to sell a product and there was an untapped
> market, of course you would try to make future versions of your product
> more attractive to them. Now obviously, PHP isn't being made for money,
> but the developers probably have much the same goals as if they were
> indeed selling it.
Your logic doesn't quite follow there. If these programmers of yours,
those who are laughing at PHP as we speak, if they don't see that it is
better than what they're currently using, then where do you find these
experienced warm bodies to swell the user-base?
A community of programmers who is strongly attached to the
characteristics of a particular language (so much so that they laugh at
languages that don't have them) is a very tapped market I would say.
> Personally, I can't see why hosts can't run both 4 and 5, and keep
> everyone happy.
Because you can't, at least not in Apache.
> It's not necessarily about ignorance about individual issues. Being a
> good programmer/software designer is about being able to take a top-down
> view and work out, a priori, why certain approaches are better/more
> applicable than others, rather than having to be told on a case by case
> basis.
Engineering as a discipline is largely based on a posteriori knowledge.
> We all know that there are sound reasons behind most "good practice"
> paradigms.
Not really. There are genuine good practices that make your life
easier, and there are persuasions by vain individuals trying to get you
to do things their way.
> If someone's new to OO, for instance
And why is he "new to OO?" It is a mystery isn't it? Here we have an
individual trying to write a script that does something. Out of blue he
suddenly thinks that OO is the way--then proceed to get it completely
wrong. What was going on in his head? Why did he choose OO when he
doesn't actually know it? And what is compelling the poor guy to
persist in this futile exercise? You would think, after trying
unsuccessfully to loop through an object, he would wisen up and use a
real array instead. Hmmm...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|