Evaluating opinions (was Re: "compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re:Password Problem))

[Fairlight]

Oh boy.  Okay, up-front, I don't want a war.  Not even a minor scuffle.  But
I do want to make a few calm observations.

Given the specific error message and commentary you cited from Jay, I can
easily see feeling what I believe would be the same way, and probably using
the same tone in many instances.

I can't speak for Jay, but IMHO, an error pointer should point to the
specific part of the expression that's at issue, not at the beginning of an
operation.  I'm not sure I would -logically- call it "worse than useless"
once I'd gotten done being frustrated, but in the heat of the moment,
especially if it led me up the garden path, I very well might do the same
thing out of frustration when I believe it could have been written to omit
ambiguity.

Part of the problem -I- have is an entire lack of patience with software
that attempts to be smart but falls short of the mark in actually helping
you find a problem.  I'd rather have something say -only- that there's
an error on (or even before) line 2072 and have to analyse that line and
everything before it (it's usually easy to narrow it down VERY quickly to
somthing manageable like 5-10 lines of probable code) in its entirety than
give me a specific pointer that doesn't actually point to where the real
problem lies.

That there was an explicit array in this case that made it obvious is not,
I think, the point.  I have hit fP errors where it gives entirely zero
context as to what kind of error it is, and points to the wrong location in
the line.  I've had it refer to variables that it says don't exist, but
which in fact do exist.  And I find that frustrating, personally.  

Cryptic and -entirely- ambiguous is fine.  Misleading and vague when trying
to describe the problem is worse, IMHO.  It's a case of feeling that if
you're going to do something, either go all the way, or don't bother.  And
I hold myself to that as tightly as I can.  I just also tend to expect no
less from others, for better or worse.  It's unfortunate when this collides
with disagreements on design issues.

And when frustrated, I too tend to push a bit hard.  And I know it.

That said, I perfectly understand where I -think- Jay is coming from most
of the time, and I've often found him acerbic, often sarcastic, and
occasionally sardonic.  But hey, I identify with that because I'm the same
way.  And when -I- do it, there's usually 95% less associated with it in
reality than some people attach significance to.  For some of us (I can
only speak for myself though), it's just the way we are.  I don't suffer
lightly things I feel are wrong.  And I'm vocal about it.

I perceive Jay as being much the same.  He won't dance around an issue.
He'll just speak his mind.  I can respect that.  I prefer it to pretense
any day of the week.

FWIW, I don't think I've ever seen him be -outright- rude, IMHO.  This is
indeed something that will be in the eye of the beholder.  Maybe I just
think I understand where he's coming from.  But seriously, I don't think
he goes out of his way to "be" any particular way.  He just seems to speak
his mind freely, in the same fashion he thinks, without pretense, without
disguise, and without bothering to glue on a thin veneer of falsely sincere
ultra-PC civility.  As someone that will often speak first and think later
(something that often gets me into trouble), I can identify with just
letting the words fall honestly and openly.

But I'd take a hundred people that will speak their mind openly without
pretense to -one- that will sugar-coat everything they say--either to cast
a better light on themselves in other people's eyes, or whatever other
reasons people hide behind masks.  At least you know what you're getting
and where you stand with the former.

And to my mind, speaking plainly and blatantly is all that should be
required to get something done.  Too many people draw too many conclusions
about people's attitudes from text messages without knowing them--and
more often than not, take away an incorrect or incomplete assessment as
a result.  You and I have proven that quite sufficiently in the past, I
should think.

> 1) You should not be using getnext if the code is modifying the key...
> sheesh, do something wrong and then complain that it doesn't work write...
> :-)  That's pretty good Jay... but I've seen you do this quite a bit in the
> past also, so my point is made again. The error is on your side.

Tecnically yes.  However, how hard would it be to actually put code in fP
that prevents one from modifying the key field(s) of the lookup index to
prevent people from making the mistake at all?  I shouldn't think very
difficult, since it knows exactly what fields it's dealing with.

> No, of course not, and I did not come even close to saying that... However,
> one does need to be nice, well mannered and courteous about suggestions,
> which _you_ never are. Try it sometime you might get those answers you say

John, the usual litmus test for an incorrect statement is the use of
an absolute.  You can't honestly say he's -never- nice, well-mannered, or
courteous.  Most of those are subjective anyway, notwithstanding the scope
of a collective community's standards.

You could say "usually", but to label it with an absolute is not something
that's particularly constructive, since absolutes are almost always subject
to exception, rendering them ineffective in discussions.

> As for your saying you don't think filePro is a killer app... and um, you've
> used it for 15 years... well, um... CLEARLY you wouldn't know a killer app
> if you saw one. :-)

I don't think his point was that fP isn't killer.  He might infer this,
but that didn't seem to be his point.  He said he didn't consider it
an application, but more of a toolkit.  It's a grey area, and open to
interpretation given the middle-ground it holds, but I think his focus was
on the program type, not the quality.

And I'm not flaming.  I'm not even going to say you're outright wrong.  I
simply politely disagree.  I've been there, and I know at least how -I-
think and what my intents are when I post.  I'm willing to give him the
benefit of the doubt, since he has never seemed patently unreasonable to
me, and I usually -feel- I know where he's coming from and why.

Remember, we've had our differences too, and voice communication cleared
all that up.  We never understood each other for a -long- time.  Now we do.
Remember, I don't come across completely or particularly well in -just-
text for you.  Perhaps the same is true with Jay.  Just a thought.

And with that, I'm out of it.  I probably should have -stayed- out of it,
but since I feel Jay is getting overbilled in an unjust negative light, I
felt it was the right thing to do, and I felt I had to speak up.  However,
I'm speaking up for the right to speak up so long as one isn't wholly
abusive--and I don't think Jay ever has been that I can remember--not
specifically for Jay or anyone else.  To my mind, he needs no defense, but
the principle does.

Bests,

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html