At 06:40 PM 7/15/2009 +0100, Paul Moore wrote: >And of course, someone has to do the clean-up. It seems to me that the >fact that people are more inclined to reinvent the code than to try to >understand the existing codebase and pick out the relevant bits, says >something important about how easy it would be to maintain the >existing code within the Python core... That's normal for any code that contains "legacy" issues, which is why people always prefer rewriting code they don't understand: it's more fun to write than to read. However, as Joel Spolsky has well explained, rewriting such code inevitably means that you must re-learn the lessons that were learned by the original author. It seems like a waste, but then, I suppose those lessons must be relearned *some* way. I just think it'd be better if, having re-learned most of the lessons by trying to rewrite, one could then go back and learn the rest from the code. ;-) That having been said, it's obviously a dead parrot... one which I will now cease attempting to revive.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4