Re: TABS and the nature of existance -Reply

[S+A Sills <ssills@CYBERUS.CA>]

good point ..  royce

------

your words of wisdom notes from a prev note:

-------------
Royce speaks:
"What exactly does the char field length limit of 254 have to do with the
SQR command line length limit of 255?  It really bugs me when people post
replies that are not even related to the original problem because they
either didn't read the original post or because they only partially
understood it and just thought theyd throw in their $0.02 worth."
------

royce,

  think about it.    .. and clam up.

>I agree - if you want to have a flame war take it off line.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Morgan, Michael [mailto:MiMorgan@SBHCS.COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, 18 August 1999 3:11 AM
>To: Multiple recipients of list SQR-USERS
>Subject: Re: TABS and the nature of existance -Reply
>
>
>What are we doing here.....writing report programs or curing cancer?  How
>about keeping a little perspective?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tony DeLia [SMTP:tdelia@EROLS.COM]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 1999 12:40 PM
>> To:   Multiple recipients of list SQR-USERS
>> Subject:      Re: TABS and the nature of existance -Reply
>>
>> Hi Jim!
>>
>>   I have a couple free minutes so I'll respond to this...
>>
>> > Gee Tony, how do you get your shirt on with a head so large?  :)
>>
>>   I had to throw out all my pullovers and switch to button down shirts
>> so my head could fit... ;)
>>
>> > But it's juvenile to dismiss his arguement as illogical simply because
>> you   disagree. And I see no excuse for attacking him personally.
>>
>>   Mike originally stated "the tab issue, like many issues of programming
>> style, is often not based in logic"... I clearly stated my issue "was"
>> based in logic without reference to his issue... You lost me on the
>> "personal attack" issue Jimmy...
>>
>> > Yelling "YOU'RE WRONG AND A JERK BESIDES"...
>>
>>   Lost me again... I don't think Mike's a jerk... we have two different
>> points of view... I expressed mine...
>>
>> I understand my opinions may come across pretty strongly... which may
>> lead to misperceptions during debates... I may have done the same thing
>> with Mike's post... when he stated "our need to compensate for our
>> lousy, outdated tools" I took this as an attack on my editor and friend
>> - SPF/PC 4.0 by Command Technology... Nobody calls SPF/PC 4.0 by Command
>> Technology lousy and gets away with it! Nobody!
>>
>>    Regards, Tony DeLia
>>
>> PS - SPF/PC 4.0 by Command Technology has been discontinued as of
>> 12/31/1998...
>>
>> http://www.command-technology.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Hardesty wrote:
>> >
>> > Gee Tony, how do you get your shirt on with a head so large?  :)
>> >
>> > I understand Mike took a fairly evangelistic tone in his message.  And
>> the natural
>> > reaction is to strongly defend your own position.  But it's juvenile to
>> dismiss his
>> > arguement as illogical simply because you disagree.  And I see no excuse
>> for
>> > attacking him personally.
>> >
>> > Yelling "YOU'RE WRONG AND A JERK BESIDES" is no way to win an
>> > arguement.  At least not after Jr High.
>> >
>> > jim
>> >
>> > - A great teacher taught me "As you go through life, always remember one
>> thing".
>> >
>> > >>> Tony DeLia <tdelia@EROLS.COM> 08/17/99 07:26am >>>
>> > Mike,
>> >    Nice lecture... Too bad you didn't pay attention to the original
>> > post... My editor supports tabs without a problem... I said someone used
>> > a shareware editor (designed for a 286 processor) which inserted
>> > additional special characters not supported by SQR (not an editor
>> > issue!)... As a consultant it's important to select an editor which has
>> > the lowest common denominator of functionality... meaning no special
>> > characters... I repeat "Why taint the source code for the mere luxury of
>> > laziness?"... You've conveniently shifted that responsibility to someone
>> > other than yourself (A true "I-need-tools-point-n-click" generation
>> > response)... Imagine expaining to a client that all their developers
>> > need to "get with the 20th century" and change their editors to
>> > something more modern to support the work they've surely overpaid for...
>> > I'd like to be in the room when some "other" consultant explains this to
>> > the client! Funny stuff! For goodness sake, the idea that you won't
>> > support something as common as simple non-TAB "gruntwork" is more than
>> > enough reason to dump this profession right then and there... I was
>> > completely unaware hitting a space key was gruntwork... God help us!
>> >
>> >      Tony DeLia
>> >
>> > PS - The only good programming tool required is your mind... although
>> > that may vary by individual... Contrary to your post my argument is
>> > based entirely on logic... enjoy your TAB key!
>> >
>> > Mike Jackmin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Speaking of pet peeves... the tab issue, like many issues of
>> programming
>> > > style, is often not based in logic so much as it is based on our need
>> to
>> > > compensate for our lousy, outdated tools.
>> > >
>> > > I use tabs, but you'll never know it - my nice, modern editor provides
>> a
>> > > simple setting to convert tabs to whitespace when the files are saved.
>> It
>> > > also provides a nice setting to convert whitespace back to tabs, if I
>> wish,
>> > > when I read it back in.
>> > >
>> > > In short, the computer is doing the grunt work. They love grunt work.
>> > >
>> > > If  you are doing grunt work, and if you hate it as much as I do, I
>> suggest
>> > > you get a more modern tool to work with and join the 20th century
>> while
>> > > there is still time. For goodness sake, the idea that your toolset
>> won't
>> > > support something as common as a TAB without raising hell is more than
>> > > enough reason to dump it right then and there.
>> > >
>> > > The same goes for email that won't handle attachments, debuggers that
>> don't
>> > > show you what you want to see and source code control that is too
>> difficult
>> > > to use on a daily basis. Almost any good programming tool will pay for
>> > > itself within months, considering both the costs of our salaries and
>> the
>> > > cost of fixing an error after the fact.
>> > >
>> > > MikeJ
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tony DeLia
>> > AnswerThink Consulting Group
>> > PeopleSoft Solutions Practice - Delphi Partners
>> > tdelia@erols.com
>> > http://www.sqrtools.com
>>
>> --
>> Tony DeLia
>> AnswerThink Consulting Group
>> PeopleSoft Solutions Practice - Delphi Partners
>> tdelia@erols.com
>> http://www.sqrtools.com
>
>