Re: Try Finally...
From: Duncan McNiven (duncan_at_mcniven.net)
Date: 10/26/04
- Next message: Duncan McNiven: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Previous message: Rudy Velthuis: "Re: Try Finally..."
- In reply to:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Next in thread: L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Reply:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:04:01 +0100
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 04:20:56 -0400, L D Blake <not@any.adr> wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 08:47:56 +0100, Duncan McNiven <duncan@mcniven.net> wrote:
>
>>I for one am left with the impression that you are
>>re-writing the Delphi code to get around problems caused by
>>misunderstanding and misusing that code.
>
>and I for one am becoming deeply insulted.
Well I am deeply confused. You have totally failed to show any problem
with the way the standard mechanism works, and declined to post code to
illustrate this problem that you alone seem to see.
>[Sigh]... once more around the loop...
>
>We are not discussing end user code here Duncan.
Yes we are. Your proposed changes break existing end user code, and
require end user code to be written differently in order to be
compatible with your changes. That is a major problem, and you are
causing it.
>My hope was to discuss the way the *language* itself works...
Then post some CODE to illustrate your point.
>As I've already made plenty clear in other messages any language with a
>reserved word that depends on loaded units has one serious problem.
You see it as a serious bug, but no-one else seems to. Certainly I have
never known anyone mention it before. Personally it comes as no surprise
to me to know that things do not work correctly if I do not include the
correct units, and if I did that I would regard it as my bug, not a
fault in the language.
>This isn't
>a trivial bug like not resetting the ioresult variable after a chdir
>operation... we are talking about entire language constructs that can get put
>into a program, sent to a customer and put into use... without ever realizing
>the code does not operate as advertised.
If you send out code without testing that it works, that is, I would
suggest, more a problem with your methodology than with the language.
Anyone that distributed untested code would not last long on any team of
mine.
>Now I don't know about you... but I'd rather mess with the guts of the
>language than risk that happening.
You say you are retiring in 3 months. Have you ever stopped to think of
the poor sod who has to maintain your code? Someone who gets a job as a
Delphi developer only to find that reserved words don't work as they do
everywhere else?
The days of tinkering with the guts of a language in order to save a few
bytes or CPU cycles have long gone. We have moved on from there, and
nowadays clear maintainable code has a much higher priority than minor
efficiency gains only noticable by the developer.
-- Duncan
- Next message: Duncan McNiven: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Previous message: Rudy Velthuis: "Re: Try Finally..."
- In reply to:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Next in thread: L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Reply:(deleted message) L D Blake: "Re: Try Finally..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
