Re: [DotGNU]flexible for users, or flexible for developers? (wasRe:User Interfaces)

[David Bradley]

Timothy Rue wrote:

> something that should be automated. To use an analogy, when programming a
> holodeck scene, must the programmer manually fill in the details all the
> way down to the grain of wood on a table leg? But wouldn't that be boring
> for someone who simply wants to play in the holodeck?
However if the filling of the dots is not efficient or unreliable it 
makes for a rather poor holodeck program. Someone has to do the boring 
work of polishing that code. I wouldn't expect an applications developer 
to go in and work on system level code, but someone has to go and work 
in that code. Another issue is the lack of design. IMO it looks as if 
more people are happy to jump in and start coding without much design, 
because design isn't "fun" and seen as a hindrance. Some of these people 
are very smart, and create good works. However they aren't happy to stay 
there and maintain their work, they move on. For the poor sole that has 
to work on it, it can be a real pain trying to figure it out. It's not 
to say that it's a bad work, just that it's complex and without 
supporting documentation difficult to maintain. There seem to be little 
standards in place for encouraging people to fully document the work 
they've done.

David Bradley
(Not the guy on the IBM commercial)