Posted by dorayme on 11/08/07 00:28

In article <sn0a05-noc.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2007-11-07, dorayme wrote:

> >> > Perhaps so. But Ed Jensen has another complaint that has been
> >> > partly dealt with but is probably interesting enough to deserve
> >> > more. Namely, that the tools used to do the good and bad coding
> >> > are unnecessarily as poor as they are.
> >>
> >> They are no worse than, for example, a car, which one can use for
> >> speeding and ignoring rules of the road just as easily as for
> >> driving sensibly.
> >
> > If this analogy was even remotely apt,
>
> You can substitute any tool you like; the analogy still applies.
>
The issue is to what. I am sure your analogy is good for the very
narrow point that a tool that will do the job in trained hands
will not necessarily do it in untrained hands. But the issue
Jensen raised is bigger than this.


> > The truth is that it is not easy to make really good websites and
> > if you think it is, you are talking from the advantage of having
> > mastered sufficient skills to achieve simplicity and competence
> > in design.
>
> We've had this discussion before, and I disagree that it is hard
> to make a good web site.
>

Well, not much can be said then. It seems to me and many others
that it requires quite a lot of skill and experience to achieve a
good website that has any complexity, one that satisfies the
myriad requirements that are so often discussed here.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]