Re^4: defining methods on the fly

Wow. All that from 'cool','clever', and 'flexible'. Man I think you have some other issues at play here which is explained in the last line of your code. I can dig that, I had a bad experience with fish one time, I don't eat it now, but I don't go yelling at everyone who does calling them idiots. Bad analogy? Perhaps, but you stretched quite a bit in your little rant too so I think it is fair. "I've been down this road and got burned so no one should ever go down that road" is pretty weak as an argument. If you had someone redefine a function on you in the middle of debuging then be mad at that person, not at anyone who rights 'cool','clever', 'flexible' code.

As a side note I would call code 'cool' if it did something in a quick clever fashion that i immediatly understood. Code I can't understand wouldn't be called cool, and code I could do simpler another way wouldn't be called cool.

Clever would be code that uses an approach that isn't obviously found, but is easily understood. Ever learned the different sorting techniques and gone...wow thats clever!

Flexible to me would mean that while the code has one specific goal in mind, it was written with the ability to extend its functionality and use it in as yet unforseen ways. The sort function in perl is pretty darn flexible and will let you do cool and clever things with it ;)

Thats my two cents, take it, leave it, whatever.

___________
Eric Hodges

Comment on Re^4: defining methods on the fly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: defining methods on the fly by Anonymous Monk on Aug 03, 2006 at 22:58 UTC
If you had someone redefine a function on you in the middle of debuging then be mad at that person, not at anyone who rights 'cool','clever', 'flexible' code. You did notice that this is exactly what the Original Poster's self-proclaimed "cool" code does, right? The point of his code is to let you add, define, and redefine attributes and methods at run time; this lets him completely alter the entire meaning of a entire class at any point in the program you he so desires. In short, he's destroyed the regular expectation about how classes and objects will behave. He's said doing this just because it's "cool" to do so. He outright admitted that he felt that he was using bad programming practices, but somehow felt that being "cool" justified bad programming. Do you wonder that I complained about this attitude? I think I am getting mad at the right person; the person who is about to redefine the codebase under me again, and the person who is teaching others to go do the same, without tempering "cool tricks" with the need to ensure that they're used carefully and correctly, and only when necessary.	[reply]
Re^6: defining methods on the fly by adrianh (Chancellor) on Aug 04, 2006 at 08:25 UTC
The point of his code is to let you add, define, and redefine attributes and methods at run time; this lets him completely alter the entire meaning of a entire class at any point in the program you he so desires. The point of his code is to let you add, define, and redefine attributes and methods at run time; this lets him completely alter the entire meaning of a entire class at any point in the program you he so desires. So any use of runtime redefinition is bad? Even when it lets you abstract duplicate code, do like better testing, etc.? Throwing away a useful programming tool because some people misuse it is like throwing away electric drills because some idiot uses it to mix their smoothie and manages to put a hole in their hand.	[reply]
Re^7: defining methods on the fly by Anonymous Monk on Aug 08, 2006 at 19:30 UTC
Throwing away a useful programming tool because some people misuse it is like throwing away electric drills because some idiot uses it to mix their smoothie and manages to put a hole in their hand. If someone says "I know this is bad carpentry practice, but I'm using my electric drill to mix smoothies", I cringe inwardly, and I don't hold out much hope for the state of their hands. ;-)	[reply]