From: thunk on
On Mar 27, 4:14 am, Ryan Davis <ryand-r...(a)> wrote:
> On Mar 26, 2010, at 20:10 , thunk wrote:
> > 1.  I don't know from "tuples" - all I "need" are hashes.   Somebody
> > also mentioned Graphs.  I'm happy with my set of conventions and these
> > hashes for my purposes.
> > 2. I looked at Rinda and didn't understand it.
> > ... and the rest
> you flipped the bozo bit.

Are you really trying to tell me I "need" a tuples Gem with no (found)
documentation, to replace my 80 line class that does what I need?

You can tell me that rather than use something I'm comfortable, wrote
100% myself, I should use a Gem from folks I don't know, with overhead
I don't know, with quality issues I have no way to estimate, and
support I can only guess at, to do something I haven't a clue why I
would need?

My first app generated apps as a R&D manager for McGraw-Hill back in
1984. Since then my apps have done what I designed them to do, and I
have never failed to finish a project I started. I have delivered,
documented, and supported FIVE large scale commercial projects, how
many have you?

(They happened to have been in the field of STATISTICAL PROCESS
CONTROL - we trained folks at HP, John Deere, Mercury Marine and other
corps on how to use this software. My reseller were the two largest
precision tool manufacturers in the World - Mitutoyo and Brown &

So do you really think you invented Testing and have a patient on it
or something?


From: thunk on

I'm a "step-wise-refinement" guy. it worked for me for many years, and
I think I can make a good case for it against any other kind of
development, when and where it can be used. There's more to it than
one might think, it is a way to follow one's instincts and work to
strengths and let the code show you where to go next.

Some folks will understand that, some won't. If you don't, I suspect
you are missing some of the real joy of programming.

Or maybe you think it is all science?