http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=266219


in reply to Re: One Section to rule them all.
in thread One Section to rule them all.

Well volunteered that Monk! :)

I agree in principle about the difference between a 'snippet' and a 'program', but I think that this distinction is easily blurred - a well-crafted one-liner is a complete finished polished program, but would probably be placed in Snippets. Somebody looking to perform that task may never realise (or believe!) that a Snippet could do the whole job, and would be searching fruitlessly for a 50-line program. In a category listing, this could be indicated simply by a 'code class' field ("one-liner, snippet, module, program" etc.)

As for the distinction between 'finished' and not...well, I don't know about you, but I've never finished a program in my life, after 20-odd years of coding :). Even the most 'perfect' of code in the Catacombs has comments, updates etc. - it all evolves. Again, a "status" field ("experimental,finished,mature" etc.) would solve this simply.

Thanks for the comments,
Ben.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: One Section to rule them all.
by graff (Chancellor) on Jun 17, 2003 at 01:15 UTC
    I agree in principle about the difference between a 'snippet' and a 'program', but I think that this distinction is easily blurred

    There was nothing in rozallin's proposal to stipulate that an entry in Code Catacombs had to be a particular minimum number of lines of code. If a one-liner stands on its own as a useful and reliable tool, then it would belong in the Catacombs. (Meanwhile, some "snippets" could be quite large, despite having limited utility...)

    I especially like rozallin's proposed distinction between the functions of "Craft" and "Catacombs" -- i.e. tentative vs. tested code. Note that rozallin used the term "polished", not "finished"; indeed, there is virtually no such thing as "finished" code (except for stuff that no one uses any more).

    And because folks can update their own root nodes in the Catacombs section, this is an excellent place to maintain useful tools.

      There was nothing in rozallin's proposal to stipulate that an entry in Code Catacombs had to be a particular minimum number of lines of code.

      There was nothing in mine either, or my answer. I was simply pointing out that the distinction is fuzzy, and often the 'wrong' categorisation choice is made, based on the lack of firm criteria, and that I felt the choice was fairly arbitrary in the first place.

      Note that rozallin used the term "polished", not "finished"

      Actually, the exact phrase was "I have always regarded Code Catacombs as a place for finished polished code"...(unless my cut'n'paste is inserting random words again {g}) - hence my making the jokey point about code never being finished, which you kindly repeated.

      As for the point about distinguishing between 'tentative' and 'tested' code, again I think this is extremely fuzzy, and why bother trying to make it? As you say, the Catacombs is an excellent place to maintain code - why not have it spend its whole life cycle there? At what point would somebody decide to 'move' their code from Craft to Catacombs? Would the node move? Or would we simply get duplicated code - an old version in Craft, and newer versions in Catacombs? All this could simply be replaced, as I said, with a "status" indicator, which (if were required) would be able to give a finer granularity than simply "tentative/tested".

      Cheers, Ben.