Re: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the help of @?)

[Sergei Steshenko]

--- On Sun, 9/2/12, Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden> wrote:

> From: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the help of @?)
> To: "help-octave" <address@hidden>, "Israel Herraiz" <address@hidden>
> Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 1:09 PM
> 
> --- On Sun, 9/2/12, Israel Herraiz <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Israel Herraiz <address@hidden>
> > Subject: Re: Cloning is good (was Re: How to get the
> help of @?)
> > To: "help-octave" <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sunday, September 2, 2012, 12:45 PM
> > Excerpts from Sergei Steshenko's
> > message of Sun Sep 02 20:27:48 +0200 2012:
> > > I think you have subtly changed the
> subject/replaced
> > the problem.
> > 
> > No, I did not. The problem I was referring to was this
> one,
> > as stated
> > by yourself:
> > 
> > " as I wrote you on different occasions, you IMO do
> not
> > demonstrate
> > understanding of SW architecture and of proper
> development
> > methodology. This particular example shows that you
> > apparently ignore
> > the 'single point of change/maintenance' concept".
> > 
> > That concept you mention is IMO just a myth, as many
> other
> > principles
> > of software engineering. My point was (or at least,
> > attempted to be :)
> > that the concept you mention is not backed by any
> empirical
> > evidence,
> > and I provided empirical evidence of the opposite. That
> is,
> > the
> > opposite of that concept is true. So your accusation of
> lack
> > of
> > software engineering knowledge is based on a principle
> which
> > has been
> > shown to be false with empirical evidences.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Israel
> > 
> 
> 
> I have already read 15 pages of the article, and I haven't
> come to the conclusion that the article denies the
> importance of single point of change/maintenance.
> 
> The article simply explains when and where cloning makes
> sense.
> 
> In fact, I, for example, am fed up with frequent breakages
> of ALSA (Linux sound system). some of them happen because
> the developers change common for many sound cards piece and
> fail to test it properly - a frequent example from the
> article.
> 
> But in this case (semantically) identical documentation is
> desirable, and a call to create a patch instead of changing
> the workflow which _ensures_ (semantically) identical
> results is a demonstration of not demonstrating
> understanding of SW architecture and of proper development
> methodology.
> 
> I.e. I used the example with documentation not as a myth,
> but as a concrete case where single point of
> change/maintenance is beneficial.
> 
> And, regarding the article, I have my own pretty
> sophisticated PerlPreProcessor used as source code generator
> - source code generation is also mentioned in the article.
> 
> It is one of my beloved workhorses.
> 
> Regards,
>   Sergei.
> 


By the way, "Cloning is good" subject is a mythical statement - even the 
article doesn't say so, it simply shows when and where cloning can be 
beneficial, and in all cases I've read so far maintainability problems are 
mentioned.

My statement was made in the context of a particular problem; you thread 
subject sounds like a universal statement.

So, it looks to me that your subject is much more myth disseminating than my 
statement in context.

I think you should have written something like 'in some cases cloning is good'.

Regards,
  Sergei.