Re: newbe about API

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 03/30/04 

Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 03:25:01 +0100

WAHT? wrote:
> skrev Herbert Kleebauer:
> > The same as in real life: As fast as you run, the finish line
always
> > is a few miles away (see Bethtool or assembly rebirth).
>
> That is good, because each time I "finnish" an app, I start to get
bored.
> "Today" I wrote an fully asm app, that searches my harddrives in
> O(veryfast) time. Possible because the not searching part of the app
was
> written from before. My delphi app that does the same thing, is
minutes
> slower. This will become my first useful asm app in a few days or
so. Some
> testing an generalizing it to read map and shares as well, is
neeeded,. It
> will be finnished. I allways finnish. They key I use, is to work at
> several apps at the same time. If I get bored, I continue with one
of the
> others. In this way, suddenly one day, I have 10, not one apps, that
all
> have learned from each others bugs. (They use same codebase). I
think my
> coding "philosophy" makes single programmer buisness possible.
Allthough
> maybe not just yet.....(okey, one point for you)

Nah, it's just a "discipline / psychology" thing...I do this "many
applications at the same time" thing and I just end up with a hard
drive full of half-finished code!!!

What works for one person unfortunately may not work for someone
else...it's all about "personal" stuff like: discipline,
determination, interest, committment, what kind of goals you set
yourself (too many? Too big?), etc., etc....

It's great that you've found a way that works well for you, by the
way...I just think it's something that can't be "generalised" to work
for everyone...

In a sense, it's a bit like the other stuff in the post earlier...for
Herbert, he considers working in HLLs "easier" (when ASM is not needed
for whatever reason)...you, on the other hand, seem to find ASM
easier...this is, again, not something you could "generalise",
though...what a person finds "easier" is a _personal_ thing...we'd all
probably wouldn't find it "easier" to tap in hex codes like wolfgang b
ut he wouldn't have it any other way because that's what's "easy" and
"natural" for him...what you say about HLL "abstraction" actually
being able to conspire to _complicate_ a matter rather than simplify
it is perfectly possible and does happen, indeed...there's nothing
"wrong" there...this is how it is personally for you...but there's
scores of other people who would swear blind to the reverse that HLLs
"abstract the machine details", allowing concentration on the
_problem_ rather than the programming, which they find "easier", even
if the "abstraction" might, indeed, bring in a few things that are
actually made _more_ "complex" - implementation-wise - by that
abstraction...

There's a saying which sums this up: "horses for courses"; A
particular horse may run really well on dry and hard courses but not
do all that well when the "going" (course conditions) are soft or
wet...whereas, there's another horse which is the complete opposite
and runs well on softer ground but really doesn't do so well on a dry,
hard course...hence, if you're going to place a bet, then "for
particular courses, there are particular horses"...

Beth ;)

Quantcast