JWColby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Thu May 3 11:23:40 CDT 2007
Charlotte, >I think you misunderstand the purpose and use of something like code librarian. And Arthur specifically mentioned "cutting and pasting modules into applications" which was what I was commenting about. Cutting and pasting anything into applications indicates that a) you have (probably) used it before, and b) you are using it again. Now a) is iffy, but if it is true then you have reached the point where it should probably be in the library. >I agree with you about libraries in principle, but when you build something that works one-off, you stuff the code into Code Librarian as a template in case you need to do something similar. Which is of course something completely different and a very good use for code librarian. >I don't know about you, but I'm not omniscient enough to know that *this precise version of a routine* belongs in a library so I can use it over and over. I generally wait until the usefulness is clear before I start building libraries. Works for me. If a function is specific to the application, it belongs in the application. In general I don't have "versions of functions". >Also, libraries in Access can be a pain when you have to distribute them, since they don't compile into a dll. Sounds like an excuse to cut and paste. Is it not a PITA to go find and fix an error inside of 47 different applications? Is that easier than copying a library where it needs to go? Now what happens when you have 10 bug fixes or 30? A library ALWAYS wins!!! >If your library gets deleted, you are SOL. True. And if your application gets deleted you are SOL. Sounds like an excuse to cut and paste. >And since libraries should be mdes, every time you "update" one, you have to rebuild it. I don't have any such belief. My library is an MDA, as is the application. If you want to use MDEs then you have to deal with the issues thereof. The point of a library is "write once, use forever", and "fix once, fix everywhere". Cut and paste does NOT meet the second criteria. Sorry, it just doesn't. You can make up excuses to cut and paste till the cows come home. It is not my job to follow you around making sure you don't do that, but it is my job to point out the flaws in the process so that other developers won't go getting the idea that it is a good practice. In general it just isn't good practice. John W. Colby Colby Consulting www.ColbyConsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Charlotte Foust Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:37 AM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook John, >I hate to hammer on this over and over, but that is what a library is for. LOL You LOVE to hammer on this!! I think you misunderstand the purpose and use of something like code librarian. I agree with you about libraries in principle, but when you build something that works one-off, you stuff the code into Code Librarian as a template in case you need to do something similar. It's very handy for reference instead of trolling the internet for hours looking for the right exanmple. I don't know about you, but I'm not omniscient enough to know that *this precise version of a routine* belongs in a library so I can use it over and over. I generally wait until the usefulness is clear before I start building libraries. Also, libraries in Access can be a pain when you have to distribute them, since they don't compile into a dll. If your library gets deleted, you are SOL. And since libraries should be mdes, every time you "update" one, you have to rebuild it. Charlotte Foust -----Original Message----- From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of JWColby Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:58 AM To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem solving' Subject: Re: [AccessD] FMS Inc. Sourcebook >I like it because then I can stop trying to remember what app I wrote a given function in. When starting a new app, I usually load CodeLib and then copy in several standard modules. I hate to hammer on this over and over, but that is what a library is for. Did you know that when Windows XP shipped it had SIXTY THOUSAND known bugs and (more importantly) an unknown number of unknown bugs. In order to fix these bugs what does MS do? Updates. What do updates do? Install a new "library" with bug fixes. Can you imagine Microsoft having to rifle through your installation of windows looking for the lines of code that have a bug that they just fixed and fixing it everywhere on 200 million computers? It is a silly concept and we all know that. I am sure that you are convinced that you have no bugs in your code, but statistics say 1 in 20 lines of code has a bug. This can be something gross such as never ending loop (which we mostly find immediately and fix) to something subtle like loss of data from a type conversion or something. By cutting and pasting your code, you cut and paste your bugs. NOW you have to remember what apps you cut and pasted bugs into! A referenced library allows you to fix a bug and simply insert that fixed library into the project. Since all your projects use your lib, all your projects get your bug fixes when you insert a new lib. I make it a policy that all GENERIC code goes in my library. All project specific code goes in the project. If it is not used anywhere else then it obviously does not belong in my library, however if it is going to be used in any other project then it does belong in my library. Libraries guys, NOT cut and paste modules. And sorry Arthur, I am not picking on you. I see LOTS of people talking about "cutting and pasting" into their projects. That is simply a no-no in modern system design. John W. Colby Colby Consulting www.ColbyConsulting.com -- AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com