If only things were this complex...

F

FarligOpptreden

Executive Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
5,396
Reaction score
31
Location
Gauteng
I dunno if its just me, but I always seem to try and make things as complex as possible when doing a project. I go out of my mind if I have to do things the same way, over-and-over-and-over-and-over again! I always try to find new, innovative ways of achieving the same result, just to keep the work interesting. :p
 
As long as it doesn't delay the project, then that's OK. I try and keep things simple, but high tech and will follow an unbeaten path in the effort to get a better result. Simple ways are better for colleagues.

If you aren't learning anything then it's pointless.
 
FarligOpptreden said:
I dunno if its just me, but I always seem to try and make things as complex as possible when doing a project. I go out of my mind if I have to do things the same way, over-and-over-and-over-and-over again! I always try to find new, innovative ways of achieving the same result, just to keep the work interesting. :p
Click to expand...

i sometimes fall into the pit of complexities; but there is nothing wrong with trying something else as long as it doesn't overstress the project on the due date and actual code and what it should do.
 
I keep to the specification, but try and achieve the result in as advanced, but efficient manner as possible. Boredom is my doom, I guess... I enjoy extending my knowledge by stretching the limits of a given technology or framework. :p
 
that's nothing - last week I built a windmill cause I was thirsty.

heh - i'm the same, but when i'm lazy i'll fall back on the tried and tested though..heh.
 
I tend to follow Jeff Atwood's concept -

  • DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
  • KISS (Keep it simple, eh)
  • YAGNI (You ain't gonna need it)

I believe this falls into the 3rd category. If you don't really need it now, chances are you won't - so don't code it.
 
Raithlin said:
  • DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
Click to expand...
That's exactly my point. I hate doing things the same way. I try to find alternative ways of achieving the goal.

Raithlin said:
  • KISS (Keep it simple, eh*)
Click to expand...
Well, that depends. I always keep my UI as simple as possible (always get praise for that :p), but I enjoy having a technological beast behind the simple front-end. Makes me feel more accomplished than just dragging controls around some WYSIWYG editor and having it generate all the code for me...



Raithlin said:
  • YAGNI (You ain't gonna need it)
Click to expand...
Again, I tend to stick to the specification. I only deviate when I see I can add value to the product and I have some time to spare. Bloat-ware is ugly, doesn't matter in what guise it comes... ;)

* - What's this all aboot? You turnin' Canadian, eh?
 
Nuts. You take an OO platform and then re-invent the wheel every time? What happened to re-usability and re-factoring existing code?
 
If you're able to re-use code you code modules pretty well, or that snippet only contains 10 lines of code.

re-using code can cause more pain than harm, figuring out why there is now a new bug when the old code worked fine, could take longer than actually, say, typing the new code.
 
Raithlin said:
Nuts. You take an OO platform and then re-invent the wheel every time? What happened to re-usability and re-factoring existing code?
Click to expand...

That's just the thing - I always feel I can improve on a specific assembly... :p I always feel it can be "more generic" or "more scalable" or "more efficient", so I go back and change it. I find it a challenge and it stimulates me mentally.
 
Keeper said:
re-using code can cause more pain than harm, figuring out why there is now a new bug when the old code worked fine, could take longer than actually, say, typing the new code.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree slightly there. If you build a proper assembly to perform some tasks you would normally want in EVERY project (say, like handling SEO urls), then it is very beneficial. The same with formatting a string to be "HTML friendly", or some server-side validations, or HTTP compression, etc... There are many instances where code re-use is very beneficial.

It's just that, when it comes down to UI, I try to improve on the wheel every time. I hate having static forms that just have fields populated with data. I prefer an XML / XSL / CSS combo and try and improve on my templating methods every time.
 
I'm the opposite. I'll try and think of new ways to make the stuff simpler and faster.

Revisiting work now that we did 3 years back and busy doing addons to the code I've taken out at least 3 or 4 functions that were "needed" which I just found a oneliner for that worked better and was browser compatible
 
AcidRaZor said:
I'm the opposite. I'll try and think of new ways to make the stuff simpler and faster.

Revisiting work now that we did 3 years back and busy doing addons to the code I've taken out at least 3 or 4 functions that were "needed" which I just found a oneliner for that worked better and was browser compatible
Click to expand...

Well, that one of the improvements I talk about. I'm always striving for more efficient, adaptable, scalable code which, usually, increases the complexity of the back-end a bit.
 
Now you're talking my language. So you don't actually rewrite as much as you refactor. AcidRaZor: That's refactoring right there.

People often misunderstand what refactoring is. I see it as improving on existing code - not only be extracting methods and the usual by-products thereof (those that come with VS, for example) - but also re-visiting and streamlining the business logic as well. I think that's what you're trying to get across, FO, and I think every developer worth his/her salt does the same.
 
Raithlin said:
People often misunderstand what refactoring is. I see it as improving on existing code - not only be extracting methods and the usual by-products thereof (those that come with VS, for example) - but also re-visiting and streamlining the business logic as well. I think that's what you're trying to get across, FO, and I think every developer worth his/her salt does the same.
Click to expand...

YES! I'd never rewrite a whole assembly just for the hell of it - that borders on stupidity and is utterly boring. I'd rather take the assembly and improve upon it which, like I said, can make the code seem more "complex". I like a challenge! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X