 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
On 1/4/2011 5:31 PM, steve donovan wrote:
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Axel Kittenberger wrote:I don't quite get the "fun" argument. You can argue that for many things writing them yourself and thus know exactly how it behaves is faster than reading the documentation of a library.The 'fun' argument is actually an anti-argument. We all recognize that the itch to do it ourselves is strong, but know that the professional thing to do is to do due diligence and find some existing libraries to do the job. This is particularly important in code that is going to be shared with the community. So, sometimes fun can be a problem ...
Fun is not a problem *at* *all*. You have target fixation.The OP did not imply in any way that (a) fun projects and (b) libraries that developers can expect to rely on for reliability and stability are one and the same.
To paint all kinds of code shared with the community with the *same* *brush* is not an intelligent argument at all.
People should feel free to share what they have done, even for so-called duplicate stuff that they had fun doing, or even weird and wacky stuff. We are not all building enterprise software here, and so stop harping on petty nit-picks.
Those who are *learning* MUST feel free to participate and share library code. We were all newbies once, remember?
After all, many of us here on the list is still engrossed with learning, and what better way to write libraries? We must write libraries to learn to embed Lua, we will *not* learn just by looking and reading only. Who's to say that when we share code it must be something that is beneficial that the author must ensure high quality and maintenance? There is nothing of that sort.
Sharing is simply sharing. If someone wants to build a "canonical library collection" that will be used by the whole community, then of course you set some standards. But it should be put in a clear domain of its own and must not encumber those who are simply learning and sharing.
We seem to be having a target fixation here, where some people seem to think that all libraries from now on must be held to a high standard for inclusion into some kind of aggregate "canonical library collection".
Stop the target fixation. Start a "Lua library collection" mailing list if you must. More common sense, people.
-- Cheers, Kein-Hong Man (esq.) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia