Re: sparse components

On 29 May 2010 07:09, James Hofmann <[email protected]> wrote:

>  In fact, by minimizing the potential for bugs, via reducing API surface
>> area or enforcing structure or adding abstraction mechanisms that directly
>> reflect the intent the client wants to accomplish, increases the magnitude
>> of optimizations you can make.
>>
>> Going the opposite way, that is, providing generic solutions to hard
>> problems that don't reduce complexity, makes it harder to do both.
>>
>
> This is my experience exactly, and it seems to hold true throughout
> software development. It's really, really easy to think you have "The
> Answer" to making some slippery problem generic, whether it be a generic
> tool, data format, architecture paradigm, data structure, language feature,
> etc. Then you try it and it blows up in your face, while the simple naive
> solution works and lets you get on with the real problems. You know you have
> some great, reusable code going when it's utterly boring and trivial to
> think about.
>
>
Yes, OO has finally blown up, you're right. The old fashioned ways did turn
out to be boring and correct! Which is why I'm using them as both source of
inspiration and a source of validation of any findings.

-- 
fabs();
Just because the world is full of people that think just like you, doesn't
mean the other ones can't be right.

_______________________________________________
Sweng-Gamedev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.midnightryder.com/listinfo.cgi/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com