Max Wanadoo
max.wanadoo at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 07:27:30 CST 2010
No, but a hammer (aka class) is what was presented to Darren as a
solution to a trivial (specific) task.
A rose by any name...
max
On 28/01/2010, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote:
> > I dont agree that you need a hammer aka class to solve every programming
> task.
>
> LOL, I don't remember ever saying that.
>
> A class is a tool in my toolbox, nothing more. And yes I am fluent and
> comfortable with them.
>
> John W. Colby
> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>
>
> Max Wanadoo wrote:
>> My lazy code took 2 mins.
>> I didnt mind doing it because it was for somebody else - therefore 2
>> mins well spent.
>> If I was doing it for myself I would have paramatised it.
>> Familiarity with classes, like other thinks, does bring its own reward
>> in terms of speed and efficiency - agree with you there.
>> I dont agree that you need a hammer aka class to solve every programming
>> task.
>>
>> max
>>
>>
>> On 28/01/2010, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> > Yes John/Drew but why use that horrendous code when you can do the
>>> same
>>> with this..
>>>
>>> The answer of course is that horrendous code is only horrendous code if
>>> you
>>> can't knock it out in 2
>>> minutes. It takes me about 5 minutes longer to do a generic solution
>>> that
>>> can handle this same
>>> requirement than it takes you to do the one liner that only handles this
>>> one
>>> specific solution.
>>>
>>> Why? Because I am comfortable with classes.
>>>
>>> How did I get that way? By USING THEM!
>>>
>>> ;)
>>>
>>> I actually USE a generic solution to this exact problem in many different
>>> places. Having name /
>>> value strings like this is not something that was invented by the
>>> application under discussion, it
>>> is EVERYWHERE! And it is often the case that you want to know not just
>>> the
>>> one value but every value.
>>>
>>> So recode your one liner over and over if you wish. I have a class pair
>>> in
>>> my framework that does
>>> this for me.
>>>
>>> As for your "generic solution"... it does not handle key/value strings of
>>> variable length. You have
>>> hard coded 0 to 3. It does not handle getting a specific key value pair,
>>> it
>>> looks for a specific value.
>>>
>>> You have gone to a lot of work for a solution that is good for exactly
>>> and
>>> only one specific
>>> instance, when 5 minutes more work would have handled the whole
>>> enchilada.
>>>
>>> I call that lazy programming. JMOOC.
>>>
>>> Doing it the right way is so trivial an exercise that it seems incredible
>>> that you would argue the
>>> point.
>>>
>>> John W. Colby
>>> www.ColbyConsulting.com
>>>
>>>
>>> Max Wanadoo wrote:
>>>> Yes John/Drew but why use that horrendous code when you can do the same
>>>> with
>>>> this..
>>>>
>>>> Call
>>>> xsplit("[AccountNo]=1234,[InvoiceNo]=1234567,[InvoiceDate]=04/01/2010,[Name]
>>>> =Barry")
>>>>
>>>> Function xSplit(str as string)
>>>> Dim arr() As String, i As Integer
>>>> arr = Split(str, ",")
>>>> Debug.Print arr(0), arr(1), arr(2), arr(3) 'Done!
>>>> 'if you want the values then this next bit will do that
>>>> For i = 0 To 3
>>>> arr(i) = Mid(arr(i), InStr(arr(i), "=") + 1)
>>>> Debug.Print arr(i),
>>>> Next i
>>>> End Function
>>>>
>>>> A person cannot go through life taking the more obtuse form of coding
>>>> just
>>>> so that they may "learn" something new.
>>>> It is all about getting the code out.
>>>> I am with Stuart on this.
>>>>
>>>> Max
>>> --
>>> AccessD mailing list
>>> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>>> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>>> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>>>
> --
> AccessD mailing list
> AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
> Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>