As I've already said .. No they aren't precious at all. That doesn't
mean I dismiss them out of hand though.
> testing character encoding is pretty ordinary.
Really, you obviously work with a different calibre of developer than
most of us then (ever had you outsourced resources try and explain
endian-ness and character encoding) ?
Perhaps you should just put your ideas down and let us all see clearly
what you value so highly.
Fraser.
On 08/04/2013, Simon St.Laurent <> wrote:
> On 4/8/13 3:45 PM, Fraser Goffin wrote:
>> No strong typing capability at all. OK, ..... I wonder what the first
>> line of code that I'm going to have to write when there's no
>> constraints at all it what I might receive and in whatever form it
>> arrives. Perhaps it will also be in any character encoding and network
>> byte order that the caller feels like using today, without declaring
>> even that typing... I guess I can use a brute force approach until I
>> find one that seems to fit .... Hope no one is going to be relying on
>> this processing and it's performance though !
>
> People rely on systems without strong typing all the time. Business
> logic can take other forms. I suspect you're relying on several such
> systems daily. Network protocols tend to be a different story, but
> testing character encoding is pretty ordinary. Responding to various
> structures, even unexpected structures, is not rocket science.
>
> If you want to caricature my ideas, you might first spend some time
> looking at the tools you're already using. Not necessarily as a
> programmer, but definitely as a customer.
>
> Are schemas really so precious to you?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Simon St.Laurent
> http://simonstl.com/
>
