pepe wrote in post #962678: >> Personal experience is valuable, but you can't always know that this >> design will be just like the last one. > > I don't think about it as a matter of design but just common sense in > most cases. I'll explain later. > >> > I'd rather spend 30 or 60 extra minutes >> > giving a universal solution to a problem or generating related >> > additional functionality that I might see a use for (but not needed >> > right now) than having to go back and spend days reworking something >> > because of those 'saved' 30 or 60 minutes. >> >> That's a poor trade-off. I know it looks good, but it really isn't. >> What you're doing is wasting 30-60 minutes for something that you don't >> need now and may never need. > > Just a silly example: > > At a place I used to work I was using a much less flexible language > than Ruby. This language didn't have by far the capabilities to > calculate dates or handle strings that Ruby has or the flexibility to > run SQL statements that Rails provides. So during my work there I was > tired of hard coding SQL statements all over the place, escaping > countless quotes, etc. The code statements were ugly looking and > difficult to read. I didn't really 'need' a tool or a system to make > the whole thing more flexible, nobody asked for it!,
At that point, you *did* need it. Ugly or repetitive code is an example of a need -- in this case, for refactoring or generalization. [...] > Did I need all that? No. Yes you did, by the definition of "need" I"m using. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org mar...@marnen.org -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
