"jr" <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> wow, thank you very much. that presentation video is .. natty. :-)
Well, yes. We all develop an individual style, and like they say - you should
stick with what you're good at ;)
I figured I needed to hammer something functional out that would illustrate the
proof of concept, and I had like 20 minutes to do it...
> looking at it all with an extra day's reflection, I now see that I ought to
> learn walking before running. </sighs>
Never any harm trying to hit the ground running, but sometimes if that doesn't
work, a slow, methodical working up from first-principles seems to be the best
way to achieve success.
Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
You can't miss fast enough to win.
> so, the next steps will be using your
> and WF Pokorny's code as starting points for "re-construction" to "fit" my aims.
> and this time it'll have to be systematic. :-)
Sometimes the best thing to do is write a pseudocode / explanatory outline to
lay out the flow of things. It also helps identify sticky spots, clarify the
order of operations, how things need to be defined, hierarchies, data
structures, how layers should be constructed, etc.
I can't tell you how many times I've answered my own question in the middle of
typing up a post trying to explain what I'm failing at doing. :D
I'm hoping to get some free time to play with this some more and make something
a bit more refined ;)
Post a reply to this message