Re: [libreoffice-users] Master Documents, Office Suites, and the Underwood

On 2014-03-27 03:06, Kracked_P_P---webmaster wrote:
> 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.
This is an interesting discussion and possibly useful to the UX team. 
There seems to be usage methods that are each the obvious (to the 
participant) route to take. Even when programming in assembly I favoured 
reusable code and jumps. Smaller code and easier maintenance, but may be 
that is just the way I look at things.
Steve

--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted