🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3136@kim> kim@spock (Kim Letkeman) writes:
>In article <10278@yunexus.UUCP>, oz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
>| In article <1990Apr24.132052.8149@talos.pm.com> kyle@cs.odu.edu writes:
>| >I disagree.  Configurability has to take into account users'
>| >preferences, yes, but at some point the programmer has to say
>| >``no'' to keep the user from cutting his own throat.
>| 
>| Where do you draw the line ?? ... [rest omitted]

>Hmmm ... must be "pot shots at Kyle" week.

This discussion is not related to any personality whatsoever. I had not
even noticed his name until you mentioned it.

>All I understood Kyle to be saying was that he felt that there were
>valid situations where the programmer might choose to use yes_or_no
>instead of y_or_n ...

You misunderstood. 

Kyle suggests that there is a point at which the programmer should "stop"
configurability, and make fixed (and perhaps arbitrary) decision as to
what is "good" for that user. I merely inquired what that point (or
dividing line if you wish) is.

[I spoke of "extensibility". Elsewhere, Kyle suggests that it is not the
same thing as "configurability". The difference is subtle, but for most
anything out there that is genuinely considered "configurable" or
"extensible" the difference is all but moot.]

>Much of software should be designed for a specific purpose and tightly
>coded and then left alone.

Ok, if you say so. :-)

>Quibbling over "how extensible" something should be is a waste of
>time. It is possible to change the source code.

No, not quibble, but discuss: It certainly is not a waste of time,
especially not when it is hip to throw around "extensibility" (some call
them macros :-) as if it is be-all-end-all solution to everything.

I think extensibility (or configurability) without resorting to the
source-code mods must have some some framework to operate within.  That's
where the decisions like "well, I do not think the extender (user?) should
be able to do such-and-such (like bypass y-or-no)" are made. Now, the next
thing to ask is *how* the programmer came up with that framework, and
*why* did he/she make those seemingly arbitrary choices.

As to modifying the source code, that is the absurt :-) part [for any
number of very realistic reasons, arguably including the readability and
or modifiability of said source ;-)].

oz 		[when we stop asking "why", we stop. - anon]


-- 
The king: If there's no meaning	   	    Interned:  oz@nexus.yorku.ca
in it, that saves a world of trouble        ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz
you know, as we needn't try to find any.    Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti]
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland)