[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] metalua 0.4
- From: "Wesley Smith" <wesley.hoke@...>
- Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:08:59 -0800
I would disagree. I think there does exists a thing called
"easy-to-reuse-code" but it is few and far between as it takes a lot
of effort to get it into such a form. Characteristics of
"easy-to-reuse-code" include but are not limited to:
- self-containment such that dependencies on external conditions are minimized
- good documentation
- good build system if that's required
- clean and precise (and orthogonal) interface
I would for example consider Lua as "easy-to-reuse-code".
On Feb 7, 2008 2:58 PM, Brandon Van Every <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 1:05 PM, Fabien <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 7, 2008 6:15 PM, Brandon Van Every <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > But every API and every piece of software out there is similarly
> > > unique. In order to use someone else's code, I have to figure out
> > > what the heck is going on with it. How much pain does that require?
> > > It depends on the design, the documentation, and the degree to which a
> > > community has already been built. Macros aren't a dealbreaker here.
> > > They aren't any worse than a baroque OO hierarchy or an ill-conceived
> > > pile of function calls.
> > Again, the problem is not formal but human (which doesn't make it any less
> > serious). When you feel free to use macros, you're much more likely to write
> > hard-to-reuse code.
> But what is easy-to-reuse code? I've never seen it. I think it's a
> myth. I've seen hard-to-reuse code, horribly-painful-to-reuse code,
> and impossible-to-reuse code. The only code I've seen that might
> qualify, is so easy as to be pointless-to-reuse code.
> Shouldn't-have-bothered-writing-a-library-for-that code.
> Brandon Van Every