Re: What IDE are you using?
Available news archives: comp.lang.tcl - comp.lang.python - comp.security.firewalls - sci.crypt - comp.lang.php - comp.lang.javascript
Google
 
Web news.hping.org


comp.lang.php archive

Re: What IDE are you using?

From: Andrew DeFaria <Andrew@DeFaria.com>
Date: Tue Oct 25 2005 - 04:42:02 CEST



Oli Filth wrote:



>>> Sure, you should know what they do and what you're trying to achieve 


>>> by using them, but knowing whether it's xml_parser_create() or 


>>> XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or equally, whether it's 


>>> strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack, $needle)) is nothing 


>>> but an exercise in trivia.


>>


>> No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...


>


> I repeat my original point - where's the benefit in learning the 


> precise syntax for thousands of functions, especially custom functions 


> that may not be documented, or unfamiliar libraries?



And I will repeat mine: What good is it *not *to be familar with the 


function call in question?



And you shouldn't have thousands of functions! If you got that much then 


you should break things into smaller , more manageable pieces.



> It doesn't make one a better programmer (in the sense of understanding 


> how to design and construct functional, elegant programs and code), 



Sure it does.



> and is error-prone (in the sense that you have to wait until run-time 


> to spot your mistakes that would otherwise have been picked up by 


> syntax highlighting, or wouldn't have been there in the first place 


> due to autocompletion).



Who says that XEmacs, for example, doesn't do syntax highlighting?!?



And no you don't *have* to wait until run-time! You could always look it 


up if you are unsure about it *before* you run it!



> Just because, for a trivial example, I can't remember whether it's 


> imagejpeg($source, $filename, $quality) or imagejpeg($filename, 


> $quality, $source) has no bearing on my understanding of what that 


> function does or why I want to use it...



Sorry you can't remember the functions that you use.



> Don't get me wrong though, if someone finds writing code easier in 


> TextPad (or whatever) easier, then I'm not going to dispute that. I 


> just find it a little tricky to understand.



That's cause you're thinking of TextPad. I've never used TextPad...



I find it much better to use a good editor, a good terminal emulator, a 


good language (or two) with a good debugger and I have specific tools 


for each task. Each are good at what they do and I don't have to bother 


loading some monolithic application that tries to be the jack of all 


trades while mastering none of them... That is the Unix philosophy and 


it has been for decades - and for good reason!



>>> Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily complex...


>>


>> I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word 


>> "necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word 


>> "unnecessarily".


>


> Depends. Larger APIs ultimately afford you greater flexibility. You 


> probably couldn't shrink, for example, the Windows or Java APIs 


> without losing functionality and/or flexibility.



How many applications do you write that actually use more than a handful 


of those APIs? And the Windows and Java APIs are not great examples of 


well engineered and well thought out APIs, IMHO...



>>>> Assembler would be quicker! Running that is. And yes some people 


>>>> still program in assembler. http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm


>>>


>>> Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.


>>


>> Well if you read the page you would see he write *all* of his 


>> applications in assembly...


>


> Yeah, I noticed that. IMO, that's a pointless waste of time, unless 


> he's doing it purely for the academic exercise. :)



You would argue that writing things efficiently is a pointless waste of 


time. That speaks more about you than it does about me. Granted, I don't 


write tight assembly code for my apps but I sure know enough to 


appreciate somebody who does instead of calling his work pointless!



<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">


<html>


<head>


  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">


  <title></title>


</head>


<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">


Oli Filth wrote:


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">


  <blockquote type="cite">


    <blockquote type="cite">Sure, you should know what they do and what


you're trying to achieve by using them, but knowing whether it's


xml_parser_create() or XmlParserCreate() or xmlParserCreate() (or


equally, whether it's strstr($needle, $haystack) or strstr($haystack,


$needle)) is nothing but an exercise in trivia.


      <br>


    </blockquote>


No, to me it's a sign that you don't know the function well enough...


    <br>


  </blockquote>


I repeat my original point - where's the benefit in learning the


precise syntax for thousands of functions, especially custom functions


that may not be documented, or unfamiliar libraries?


  <br>


</blockquote>


And I will repeat mine: What good is it <b>not </b>to be familar with


the function call in question?<br>


<br>


And you shouldn't have thousands of functions! If you got that much


then you should break things into smaller , more manageable pieces.<br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">It doesn't make one a better programmer (in the sense of


understanding how to design and construct functional, elegant programs


and code), </blockquote>


Sure it does.<br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">and is error-prone (in the sense that you have to wait


until run-time to spot your mistakes that would otherwise have been


picked up by syntax highlighting, or wouldn't have been there in the


first place due to autocompletion).


  <br>


</blockquote>


Who says that XEmacs, for example, doesn't do syntax highlighting?!?<br>


<br>


And no you don't <b>have</b> to wait until run-time! You could always


look it up if you are unsure about it <b>before</b> you run it!<br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">Just because, for a trivial example, I can't remember


whether it's imagejpeg($source, $filename, $quality) or


imagejpeg($filename, $quality, $source) has no bearing on my


understanding of what that function does or why I want to use it...


  <br>


</blockquote>


Sorry you can't remember the functions that you use. <br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">Don't get me wrong though, if someone finds writing code


easier in TextPad (or whatever) easier, then I'm not going to dispute


that. I just find it a little tricky to understand.


  <br>


</blockquote>


That's cause you're thinking of TextPad. I've never used TextPad...<br>


<br>


I find it much better to use a good editor, a good terminal emulator, a


good language (or two) with a good debugger and I have specific tools


for each task. Each are good at what they do and I don't have to bother


loading some monolithic application that tries to be the jack of all


trades while mastering none of them... That is the Unix philosophy and


it has been for decades - and for good reason!<br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">


  <blockquote type="cite">


    <blockquote type="cite">Unfortunately, most APIs are necessarily


complex...


      <br>


    </blockquote>


I would agree! Except, of course, for the usage of the word


"necessarily". For that word I would substitute the word


"unnecessarily".


    <br>


  </blockquote>


Depends. Larger APIs ultimately afford you greater flexibility. You


probably couldn't shrink, for example, the Windows or Java APIs without


losing functionality and/or flexibility.


  <br>


</blockquote>


How many applications do you write that actually use more than a


handful of those <span>APIs</span>? And the Windows and Java <span>APIs</span>


are not great examples of well engineered and well thought out APIs,


IMHO...<br>


<blockquote cite="midueg7f.8048$Ce5.1120@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net"


 type="cite">


  <blockquote type="cite">


    <blockquote type="cite">


      <blockquote type="cite">Assembler would be quicker! Running that


is. And yes some people still program in assembler.


<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm">http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm</a>


        <br>


      </blockquote>


Yup, I still do too ;) But only for embedded stuff.


      <br>


    </blockquote>


Well if you read the page you would see he write *all* of his


applications in assembly...


    <br>


  </blockquote>


Yeah, I noticed that. IMO, that's a pointless waste of time, unless


he's doing it purely for the academic exercise. :)


  <br>


</blockquote>


You would argue that writing things efficiently is a pointless waste of


time. That speaks more about you than it does about me. Granted, I


don't write tight assembly code for my apps but I sure know enough to


appreciate somebody who does instead of calling his work pointless!<br>


<br>


</body>


</html>


Received on Mon Nov 21 02:49:19 2005