Clash Coding Standards Discussion

[F_Smith]

But what especially bothers me is that you, F_Smith, Know that statements like that pull my chain, and you persist in making them!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize. Honestly, I meant nothing by the comment. I was not aware that this would pull your chain.

Demo 4 had a lot of work in it, I respect what you put into it. I didn't mean to imply any disrespect.

[Mark_Everson]

Sorry, I thought you Must know by now that statements like that would give me problems... although I know its been a bit since a flare-up so I can see how you could have forgotten. (I manage to forget 'how-could-you-forget' emotional stuff with my wife on occasion when a lot of time has passed from the previous offense. )

By way of a primer

Statements that are in any flavor of 'what was done before was worthless' will generally not go over well with any audience

Criticisms that aren't all-encompasing are much easier to handle, and also IMO most always more correct:

'The previous approach was too procedural for my tastes, and I thought a thorough refactoring using OO principles would improve function, etc.' is less all-encompasing. Also it says improvements could be made (who would disagree with that, certainly not me.) without making a blanket (and incorrect IMO) statement about the code 'being procedural'.

[Gary Thomas]

Without wishing to get involved in, or encourage, dispute, I would like to point out that it is impossible, in the nature of the language, to write a procedural program in Java.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

That's it, lets both flame the interloper!

Bloody do-gooder