Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2014 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 03/25/2014 11:48 PM, Brian Barker wrote:
At 09:33 25/03/2014 -0400, Tim Lungstrom wrote:
As a person who learned to type on a typewriter and learned programming on a mainframe computer [since the PC did not exist at that time], I have not learned how to do "styles". Never really needed it, as far as I was concerned.

Your history as a programmer is relevant - but leads me to an opposite conclusion. Surely in programming a computer, you quickly learned that when you needed substantially similar logic at more than one place in a piece of software, the reliable and maintainable technique was to separate that part of the code and to write it once as a separate routine, invoked from as many places as necessary. Styles are just the same: you get them right once and use them as often as you need. You don't fall into the trap of having many identical occurrences of something but with one or two - in error - different (though you didn't notice). When you inevitably need to make changes to your arrangements, you make them in one place and can be confident that they will be instantly applied everywhere appropriate.

Brian Barker

Your coding statement[s] seem to suggest Object Orientated Programming. Well they did not have that type of programming in any of the mainframe languages I learned or used. OOP was a new thing when I went for my last degree in programing and had only one brief section of a class about it. Now that OOP is more of the standard, people may not remember that "us older and/or mainframe programmers" were not exposed to OOP in our education and working environments, unless we brought it into work and tried to get our boss to except that new and "radical" technology.

Sure, as a programmer, I wrote procedures, functions, and routines, that I would then "make fit" into the new work, but the only time we "called" a "sub-program" was when we has a main program and we called complete programs and not "objects". Most people I worked under wanted every single program to be self contained. That way there was no accidents with these "funny new objects getting lost or deleted". Times are very different now. The last big company I worked at still used the old IBM mainframe tech, even though Windows servers were out and being used by a lot of companies. Just before I left, they bought a rack of IBM servers to deal with some of the newer data communications between factories.

SO, you might guess that I had not been exposed with OOP till I started to play with C++ in my "forced retirement" from my work related injuries and several strokes.

I know the theory, but I have not the experience of a programmer who grew up using OOP in their daily life.

Of course, I do use CSS in my web site designing, but I have not done much since my back/neck/shoulder injuries got worse. I decided to spend most of my PC time with LO support and "enhancement projects" - i.e. 797K word dictionary, and the new expended color palette options porject.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.