If you can span the same space with fewer tools, that is good. If you
need >1 lens to cover all subjects, so be it. It sounds like it is a
problem of fit, not something independent of the problem space. No need
to discuss the benefits of SLR's, that is just stretching the analogy.
On 12/4/2012 10:16 PM, John Carlson wrote:
Wouldn't it be best to make programming a bit like single lens photography
instead of dual (or triple) lens photography? It would seem like the fewer
lenses you use, the less likely it would be for one of them to be scratched.
Unless somehow there was a compensating factor in the lenses.
My 2 bits. Metaphor isn't quite right, but perhaps you see my point.
Where's my post-mature optimization?
John "Damn the torpedos, we're going full speed ahead and getting nowhere"
Carlson
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|\/| Randy A MacDonald | If the string is too tight, it will snap
|\\| [email protected]| If it is too loose, it won't play...
BSc(Math) UNBF '83 | APL: If you can say it, it's done.
Natural Born APL'er | I use Real J
Experimental webserver <http://mormac.homeftp.net/?source=190907>
------------------------------------------------<-NTP>----{ gnat }-
_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
