|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
first off, let me say that i do not disagree with you.
that said, i would like to clarify. i was not refering
to a problem unclear in that i did not understand. i was
describing the fact that sometimes the logic needed for
solving a problem is not obvious, is not intuitive, and
quit often is not any clearer than mississippi mud. these
are the times when after you understand the problem, you
can step back and see the issue still resides in a fog
bank, but rather than spend all day looking for a nice
little way to code so that your little sister in elementary
school can understand it, you bang in a quick and dirty
line that solves the problem and a nice descriptive
comment to enlighten your posterity.
in response to the 2:1 ratio... that's called 2 weeks notice
in my book. insanity is not my cup of tea, and that is
clinical right there. if you have not come across a problem
that requires ugly logic, you have not experimented much.
i also fall heavily in support of the "hacker ethic" described
so well by steven levy in "hackers - heroes of the
computer revolution" in that any code you can write,
i will write in less lines. (not a challenge, just
philosophy) "bumming" out instructions
is the foundation of computer programming and continues
to drive me as a programmer. if i write something, i
will write it later in less lines. i do not ask you to
agree, but i ask you to not insinuate my "more functionality
with less keystrokes" method is wrong. i do not argue
that you are wrong because you like to write in cute
little snippets with no comments, so please extend me
the same curtesy. thanx, and my what a beautiful horse
"A computer is almost human - except that it does not blame its mistakes on another computer."