All u guys that post code to push up your little ego and then don't help when it sucks need to see a shrink.
Don't want emails, don't post. Keep your bad code in the folder were it belongs. There are enough who think they know. And finally: The code in question is without question buggy. BTW: I did build Brooks' project and had to send him two emails. One with a question and the other a thank you. Have a nice day Norm n3ykf On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Jim Lux <[email protected]> wrote: > On 3/30/13 2:58 PM, Lizeth Norman wrote: > >> What a bunch of hooey. Another so called expert wasted hours of my time >> because he can't be bothered to either note that code is buggy or just >> can't be bothered.. >> If you don't want to release it, then don't. If you do and it's a POS, >> Expect emails. >> >> > > Let's talk about that "wasted hours".. > > You had a need. You had two alternatives: > 1) write the needed code yourself > 2) use something someone else has written. > > Presumably, you figured that #1 has large cost (if it were trivial, you > wouldn't even start considering #2).. > > The value of satisfying the need is Value(#1) > > > So you make a *speculative investment* in trying #2. It pays off and you > are ahead of the overall game by Cost(#1)-Cost(#2). You've just got a > substantial return on your small investment (you spent Cost(#2) and you got > Value(#1) in return) If it doesn't pay off and you've invested Cost(#2) > without any return. > > This is not "wasted".. this is "a speculative investment that didn't pay > off". > > A smart investor might look at the quality of documentation, or at the > source code, or look for support groups. Such things sometimes exist and > make the probability of usefulness go up (In modern terms,the "Software > Reuse Readiness Level" is higher). > > Sure, sometimes you invest blind, and find that the program doesn't work > well, etc., but that's not wasted. You've basically paid for information. > > > Finally, what is a POS for you may not be a POS for other people. A lot > of freely released software was written to satisfy a tiny niche need, with > NO intention that it be used for anything else. If you want to use it as a > starting point, fine, but don't come whining when it doesn't happen to do > what YOU need. > > This is especially true of software written to provide an interface to a > piece of test gear or equipment, for which the writer has exactly one > instance. All they care about is that they can get their counter, timer, > antenna tuner, or whatever to work. They have neither the time, money, nor > inclination, to make the software work for ANY model of that piece of test > equipment, nor to accommodate all the manufacturing variations. > > Or maybe someone wrote software to extract data from a published source > for some need, and then the published source changes its format. The > extraction software is now broken, but it met the original need, it might > provide a framework for a future user to modify. > > I don't have a problem with this. > > ______________________________**_________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/** > mailman/listinfo/time-nuts<https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts> > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
