Re: For loops
CChris wrote:
>
> Bernie Ryan wrote:
> >
> > I think you are concentrating to much on change and complicated
> > features.
>
> Just some that other users requested.
> Definitions of what is simple or not vary among users, so ... it's kind of a
> consensus thing.
>
> > Just add simple features that do not break code.
>
> Did you notice that RDS hasn't followed this pattern in the past?
> Additionally,
> simple features often prove complicated to use - for instance, consider how
> little namespaces are used, because they are inadequate out of simplicity.
Yes, it's important to keep our collective eyes on the final goal. The
original namespace implementation had an elegant and simple implementation,
but it also had some fatal flaws (as far as fixing the problem for which
it was meant).
I think that the changes that are now in the trunk do a pretty good job of
closing that loop. The feature just became more powerful, even though the
usage hasn't really changed.
I think it's worth it to try to find a simple way to solve the common
problems that we all complain about on this list. For whatever reason,
it's often easier to come up with an over complex solution that explicitly
handles many specific cases, when in reality, a simpler solution may be
a better approach. It may not be entirely as powerful, but if it's easier
to comprehend, and ultimately solves the same problem as the more powerful
and complex solution, I think most people would agree to its superiority.
Simpler solutions also tend to be easier in terms of gaining consensus than
something that is more complex, since the number of possible disagreements
rise just like the combinatoric possibilities of features.
Matt
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
