From: John Morrison (jmorrison_at_ahc.net.au)
Date: 2002-03-08 14:45:27
I'd prefer not to waste time answering your back handed comments about and
to me and get on with the job but I guess I'll have to waste more time. :-(
Jim P. didn't you agree to stop putting me down (Flaming) because I'm
different from you as I like to design first program second?
I read with interest the development of your code and I see it as a valuable
process.
Why do you blind yourself to any other way and try to stifle it?
> I have an idea. Why don't we seriously create a [talkcheapeeg] group
> to have all these discussions in ? Then members of that group can
> come back to the [buildcheapeeg] list with a finished proposal and/or
> code once they've thrashed it all out. (Or maybe I'm just trying to
> push the problem elsewhere, where I don't have to read it).
I know what wastes a LOT of time this BULL SHIT DISCUSSION.
> The problem for me is that if someone comes to the group saying "Tell
> me all about this subject I know nothing about" or "We *have* to
> discuss this very important aspect of the project which I have done no
> research on", then everyone has to spend a lot of time explaining
> things. Even worse, if someone posts to the list proposing a
> half-baked and badly-researched solution, everyone has to jump in and
> correct it for fear of anyone actually agreeing to it. This wastes a
> lot of time for people who have other things to be getting on with.
So ask no questions go out to the internet and research on the billion of
sites that exist and come back here with a BAD idea as you've found bad
sites out there.......
What particular "half-baked and badly-researched solutions" have been
brought here that you consider BAD?????
Please give examples!!
> It would be much better for people to do a little bit of thinking or
> research first. Alternatively, [talkcheapeeg] is available for
> endless thrashing out of badly thought-out proposals.
WHAT PROPOSALS???
> I seem to remember I came to this group with some bright idea that I
> wanted everyone to agree with, and after some flame war, I decided it
> would be better to go it alone, and simply prove it by doing it.
> John, how does that sound as an approach ? It would mean actually
> doing some coding, though.
There you go again same old line. :-(
> I appreciate the part that Jim-M has been playing here, because
> although he explodes in flame sometimes, he does seem to consistently
> encourage people to get on with what they are good at, and keep on
> working towards a solution. He also fails to believe in anything he
> can't see for himself, which is good as all the design in the world is
> worth nothing if it never reaches hard code.
Well maybe, maybe not, I know of a lot of design projects that NEVER made it
to code BUT were the basis of some fantastic programs as all the ground work
had been done.
> In my opinion, we are talking about two extremes. The pure coding
> version, and the pure design version. In reality I would hope we
> would use a combination.
I agree and that is exactly what I'm doing!
> Coming from a pure coding angle requires rewrite after rewrite to get
> a nice system. However, if you are willing to see code as a liquid
> malleable substance, this might be do-able. If you hate writing or
> modifying code, you are obviously not going to be happy with this
> approach. However, it does have the advantage that you find out
> straight away if you had some misconception of the dynamics of the
> system.
> Coming from a pure design angle means knowing everything before you
> start coding, and coding only once. This is perfect for those who
You seem to think that I want to know everything.
When All I want to know is the inputs and outputs.
> don't like to code, or who hope someone else will do the coding. This
> might be do-able for projects that have been done 100 times before and
> have been well documented and studied, like writing a database system
> perhaps, but if the terrain is not well known, then working from pure
> design seems to me to be a catastrophe in the making.
Unless of course the design is for a framework (That has been well
documented and studied)
to contain classes pertaining to bio-feedback!
> I personally don't trust any designer who is not willing to test his
> ideas in code, or back them up with decent research or experience. It
> really worries me when John says that he doesn't intend to code all
> this. Who does he think is going to code it, then, if he won't ?
I HAVE NEVER SAID I WON'T CODE!!!!!!!
WHERE DID YOU GET SUCH A RIDICULOUS IDEA FROM ???????????????
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
> We are all volunteers here, and no-one is getting paid to be anyone
> else's code monkey. If it doesn't fit with someone's personal
> priorities, it simply won't happen, no matter how perfect the design.
YES THAT IS TRUE!!!! and I would never presume to do that who would?
YOU'VE DONE THIS before........ the last time you started flaming me!!
You got it wrong that time as well so next time read what I write not what
you think I write!
> Do you think we can get back from the two extremes ? Designers must
> be willing to test their ideas in code (or else through research), and
> coders must be willing to structure their code to enable
> 'house-building'.
And a good framework would help that process immensely!!!!
> My personal approach just recently is to ignore any nonsense proposals
Which ones are nonsense? TO YOU?
If you're talking about the design that I've been an instigator of.
Then you must also thing that Doug, Dave, Moritz and Rob speak nonsense.
They have all been part of the discussion and I'm now working with Dave on
code based on the design we've worked out up to this point!
> arriving on the list, not even to correct glaring inadequacies or
> omissions, on the basis that it is simply more efficient to code it
So you won't help people to not make mistakes!
> all myself than to try to adapt the 'list' solution into something
> usable. There is no point wasting energy persuading someone of
> something that they don't want to believe when you know for certain
> they are wrong. Let them live in their illusory world, and hope they
Hay Galileo (NO I'm not saying I am!) was persecuted because EVERYONE was
"CERTAIN" it was flat.
And of course they persecuted him for it!!
BUT WHO was right in the end!!!
> leave you alone to get on with your work. This is the "walled-off"
> developer scenario.
YEP that is right "walled-off" is great if you know everything or have an
infinite time to "research" but is very inefficient!
> I really want to make progress with this project -- it seems like a
> very worthwhile goal to me.
OK WHAT do you see as the goal of the project........DEFINE IT!! I HAVE!!
> If I wasn't so interested in reaching the
> goal, I might well have drifted off by now. I think we have a good
> team coming together here, with experience in lots of areas, all from
> quite different backgrounds.
So it is a GOOD resource.
How do you propose that we use this resource without asking questions and
doing research here?
> With some respect for one another's
> abilities, and acceptance of our own individual lack of ability in
> certain areas, I really hope we can work out these difficulties.
Now this is REALLY Strange!
In the final paragraph you say to "RESPECT" each other BUT for the other 90%
of the document you've trodden over anyone (Mainly me) who's views are
different from your own!
What difficulties ???
> Jim
OK SO now I've wasted an hour answering THIS BULL SHIT FLAME...........
JUST because you have "THE ONLY ANSWER" and all other ways lead to hell and
damnation.
WHY so you want to KILL off discussion?
This kind of SHIT only stops the "lurkers" from coming out and becoming
active parts of the community because they are afraid to ask questions.
As I said the LAST TIME I'm not trying to push my views on you so WHY are
you trying to push your views on me???
If you don't want to be part of a discussion and ignore the views that are
part of it the "delete" button is VERY quick to press.
BUT DON'T WASTE MY TIME and let me get on with the job!
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:40 BST