Re: Re: Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict

in reply to Re: Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict
in thread Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict

They're actually the opposite of a cargo cultist, even if the visible symptoms are identical. ... It isn't what you do...it's why you do it. ... "What" is not important. Only "why" is important.

I'll take the antithesis to that. If I'm given a body of code to incorporate into something else, or to extend because the requirements changed, or otherwise to maintain, and I see a "mess" that is fragile and hard to change, than the original author was either very smart or had a large monkey multiplier factor. Do I care which? NO! I only see the result, that the code is hard to maintain.

In anything other than your own throw-away program, the "visible symptoms" is the only part that matters. Everything else is just cold dead history.

—John
(still making you challange your assumptions)

Comment on Re: Re: Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict by Anonymous Monk on Jul 23, 2002 at 11:12 UTC
You missed the point. The "symptoms" that TheDamian talked about are checklists of specific programming practices people are told to avoid. If you know what you are doing and why, you can use most of them but avoid the problems which make it simpler to tell people not to use them. The resulting code can be both good and maintainable, but will cause people who only know the checklists to freak out because it violates their checklists. TheDamian is infamous for writing code like that. It is like swimming. If you have had any swimming lessons, one of the first things they drill into you is to not get anywhere near a drowning person in the water because you will die. The reason is that a drowning person is several times stronger than normal, and their only desire is to climb on top of you and stand on your head. You simply are not a good enough swimmer to handle that treatment. Nobody is. Yet lifeguards go after drowning people in the water all the time. Isn't that stupid? No, because lifeguards know the danger perfectly well and understand how to avoid it. (Always approach from behind, stay in place holding the person's head up until they are calm, the instant you get into trouble - dive!) Yes, it is dangerous. Yes, it is what everyone is told from day one not to do. But if you know what you are doing, it sometimes is exactly what needs to happen.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Paradigm Shift - Don't use strict
by Anonymous Monk on Jul 23, 2002 at 11:12 UTC

The "symptoms" that TheDamian talked about are checklists of specific programming practices people are told to avoid. If you know what you are doing and why, you can use most of them but avoid the problems which make it simpler to tell people not to use them. The resulting code can be both good and maintainable, but will cause people who only know the checklists to freak out because it violates their checklists. TheDamian is infamous for writing code like that.

It is like swimming. If you have had any swimming lessons, one of the first things they drill into you is to not get anywhere near a drowning person in the water because you will die. The reason is that a drowning person is several times stronger than normal, and their only desire is to climb on top of you and stand on your head. You simply are not a good enough swimmer to handle that treatment. Nobody is.

Yet lifeguards go after drowning people in the water all the time. Isn't that stupid? No, because lifeguards know the danger perfectly well and understand how to avoid it. (Always approach from behind, stay in place holding the person's head up until they are calm, the instant you get into trouble - dive!)

Yes, it is dangerous. Yes, it is what everyone is told from day one not to do. But if you know what you are doing, it sometimes is exactly what needs to happen.

[reply]

In Section Meditations