Le Mardi 8 Août 2006 15:44, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany a
écrit :
> Not sure we're talking about the same cut'n'paste here :)
>
> What I mean is large chunks of codes which do exactly the same thing
> (including having the same bugs) in different locations. Code which
> could be outsourced in some common routine/class/whatever. That's not
> about reusability, but about lazyness of the developer :)
Hmmm okay.
One of the problems here is modularity. When you write KDE driver, you don't
want to put your code in common with evolution's driver because evolution is
not under your responsability. Even if you did the effort, you would not be
sure that the evolution guys would appreciate: what if you introduce new
bugs?
(... large parts skipped because I 100% agree)
> > Because you usually reuse things way too strong for your needs.
>
> Which I don't cosider bad. As long as there are other clients using the
> strength, and it doesn't cost extra in the implementation, that's okay
> to me ...
Hmmm. Yes. No. Don't know. I still prefer code that uses only the necessary
minimalistic stuff. But that's perharps more an esthetical preoccupation than
a rational one, yes...
--
Mais s'inscrire dans la logique du combat contre l'"axe du Mal" était une
gageure. Ce crédo américain, d'origine religieuse, a échoué en Irak. Et
maintenant, il mène Israèl, qui s'érige en défenseur de la "civilisation
occidentale", dans l'impasse. -- Esther Benbassa, École pratique des hautes
études.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
