Darren New wrote:
>> Eventually I just put everything related to simulation into one 
>> utterly giant module. Circular dependencies within the same module 
>> don't matter. ;-)
> 
> I assume you're doing this in Haskell? I haven't really been paying too 
> much attention.

Yeah, it's Haskell. Surprised? ;-)

>> It's about now that an IDE starts to sound attractive. It would be 
>> nice to be able to glance at a panel and see the sames and types of 
>> all the functions I've written, and be able to quickly navigate to them. 
> 
> Now you're getting it. :-)

I did think about trying Leksah the other day - but I couldn't be 
bothered with solving the dependency hell in order to make it compile...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 6/24/2010 10:36 AM, Invisible wrote:

> Anyway, I could show you the code if you _want_, but... it's kinda
> large. (And most of it is just searching for or storing data, which
> isn't tremendously interesting.)

Yeah, show me ... :)

660 doesn't seem like much in terms of code size. I'm pretty sure my 
program is a few more lines. ;)

Right now I'm attempting to move a lot of the interaction stuff into 
separate modules outside of the main control. Problem is there's a ton 
of interdependency between the user interaction code an the actual 
control (big surprise there) I'm thinking about nesting the interaction 
modules into the main control so I can keep the protected and private 
stuff protected and private (One thing C# lacks that can be a bit 
irksome sometimes is the lack of a friend declaration for classes that 
are tightly coupled to a particular class. (Yeah... I know-- coupling 
between classes should be loose, but in some situations it makes sense.)

Posting the source for all to see has made me a bit ... nervous, though. 
This is the first time I've actually gone open-source on something and I 
feel a bit vulnerable and open to ridicule... no one has yet... but it 
could happen. I get nice comments from people I work with regarding my 
code, but those are co-workers... they have to be nice. ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> Anyway, I could show you the code if you _want_, but... it's kinda
>> large. (And most of it is just searching for or storing data, which
>> isn't tremendously interesting.)
> 
> Yeah, show me ... :)

You'll be sorry. ;-)

I think I'll post it on our Haskell newsgroup, if that's OK?

> 660 doesn't seem like much in terms of code size. I'm pretty sure my 
> program is a few more lines. ;)

We're talking about a programming language where quicksort is 2 lines of 
code. 660 is pretty huge. ;-)

The main reason I keep individual files small is to make it faster to 
navigate. I don't like having to scroll through pages and pages to get 
to where I want. But hey...

I wouldn't even mind so much, but a lot of the code is fairly mundane. 
Insert this value, delete that one, search for this key, etc.

> Right now I'm attempting to move a lot of the interaction stuff into 
> separate modules outside of the main control.

Heh, yeah, good luck with that. ;-)

> Posting the source for all to see has made me a bit ... nervous, though. 
> This is the first time I've actually gone open-source on something and I 
> feel a bit vulnerable and open to ridicule... no one has yet... but it 
> could happen.

Yeah, I put a couple of trivial libraries onto Hackage [the central 
Haskell package DB]. One person complained that the RGB colourspace 
isn't linear [which obviously it damned-well should be]. Somebody else 
said that my vector package did the same thing as an already-existing 
package. That kind of thing. But for the most part, nobody even noticed. 
Trust me, people notice you way, way less than you think...

> I get nice comments from people I work with regarding my 
> code, but those are co-workers... they have to be nice. ;)

Do they?? o_O

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2010 8:17 AM, Invisible wrote:

> I think I'll post it on our Haskell newsgroup, if that's OK?
>

Yeah, that'll work/

>> 660 doesn't seem like much in terms of code size. I'm pretty sure my
>> program is a few more lines. ;)
>
> We're talking about a programming language where quicksort is 2 lines of
> code. 660 is pretty huge. ;-)
>

I see (I think ...)

>> Right now I'm attempting to move a lot of the interaction stuff into
>> separate modules outside of the main control.
>
> Heh, yeah, good luck with that. ;-)
>

Yeahhhh... It's a bit of challenge from the design standpoint.

> Yeah, I put a couple of trivial libraries onto Hackage [the central
> Haskell package DB]. One person complained that the RGB colourspace
> isn't linear [which obviously it damned-well should be]. Somebody else
> said that my vector package did the same thing as an already-existing
> package. That kind of thing. But for the most part, nobody even noticed.
> Trust me, people notice you way, way less than you think...

Ach... true, tho as someone once said (on people talking amongst 
themselves in their own national language, in particular in the US that 
would be Spanish) You're just not that interesting to other people. 
They're speaking in their own language because they're more comfortable 
doing that. My wife knows Spanish very well. She can back that up. 
Usually it's just mundane family stuff or gossip about work.

>> I get nice comments from people I work with regarding my code, but
>> those are co-workers... they have to be nice. ;)
>
> Do they?? o_O

Eh, it makes it easier to work with others if you're nice to them. :)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

>> I think I'll post it on our Haskell newsgroup, if that's OK?
> 
> Yeah, that'll work/

See you on povray.off-topic.fan.haskell.bork.bork.bork in a little 
while. ;-)

(Of course, dumping the code will take about 3 mouse clicks explaining 
what it *does* is another matter...)

>>> Right now I'm attempting to move a lot of the interaction stuff into
>>> separate modules outside of the main control.
>>
>> Heh, yeah, good luck with that. ;-)
> 
> Yeahhhh... It's a bit of challenge from the design standpoint.

Trust me, it's easier if you start with everything seperated from the 
very beginning. ;-)

>> Trust me, people notice you way, way less than you think...
> 
> Ach... true, tho as someone once said 
> You're just not that interesting to other people. 

It's true.

>>> I get nice comments from people I work with regarding my code, but
>>> those are co-workers... they have to be nice. ;)
>>
>> Do they?? o_O
> 
> Eh, it makes it easier to work with others if you're nice to them. :)

Ooo. I must try this...

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> irksome sometimes is the lack of a friend declaration for classes that 
> are tightly coupled to a particular class. 

That's what "internal" is for. :-)  Not quite as precise, true.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2010 11:25 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> irksome sometimes is the lack of a friend declaration for classes that
>> are tightly coupled to a particular class.
>
> That's what "internal" is for. :-) Not quite as precise, true.
>


Right... but that makes it available assembly-wide, when I don't want it 
available assembly-wide. Oh well...

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Right... but that makes it available assembly-wide, when I don't want it 
> available assembly-wide. Oh well...

Then your assembly might be too large. :-) But since everything in the 
assembly is by definition tightly coupled, I'm not sure why comments as to 
who is supposed to be using it aren't sufficient. Beyond just theoretical 
OCDness.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
    that the code does what you think it does, even if
    it doesn't do what you wanted.

Post a reply to this message

On 6/25/2010 12:01 PM, Darren New wrote:

> Then your assembly might be too large. :-) But since everything in the
> assembly is by definition tightly coupled, I'm not sure why comments as
> to who is supposed to be using it aren't sufficient. Beyond just
> theoretical OCDness.

Yeah, you just nailed it there .... Theoretical OCDness..:D

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message