David Crayford writes: <begin extract> IMO, programming skills to develop applications should be kepth to the minimal. I would rather get the job done as quickly as possible then show off rubbing two sticks together when I could just use a match. </end extract>
and here we have an example of rhetoric rather than substance. I have long since developed my own reusable list processing routines, and I do not really believe that applications and systems programming are different in the sense that they require qualitatively different kinds of skills. One uses the skills one has, and if they are deficient the resulting application is deficient too. The chief reason why so little application code is reusable is that it is conceived in haste or by people who know too little. Most flagrantly, the situation we confront online reflects these deficiencies: AP after AP turns out to be insecure because written in radical ignorance of how to make it secure. (The most recent US-CERT vulnerability summary, that for the week of 14 October 2013, listed 58 new high vulnerabilities; and this is a typical weekly count.) Mr. Crayford is of course entitled to his views and practices. I often---but certainly not always---disagree with them, as I too am entitled to do. I do regret that he seldom takes the time to argue for his positions. Something "sucks" or "is going the way of the dodo", and those who disagree with him do so because they wish to "show off by rubbing two sticks together". Too often, ad hominem jibes replace substantive argument; and this is a pity because when he does trouble to present his views in detail I find them interesting. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
