[Gambas-user] Some more example projects to be distributed with gambas

[BB]

(story)

To illustrate, this type of thing.

In the early 1970's I was employed as a "senior programmer/project 
manager" on a project at a rather large international merchant bank. One 
day I was hauled over the coals by the IT Director asking "Why doesn't 
your system stop the dealers from selling the stock lodged as security 
on a loan?". Thinking quickly I replied "Well, I guess the programmers 
assumed that no moron would even try that."

I doubt that would stand up in court these days.

But I do still remember the identity of the said programmer. (Wanders 
away with hands in pocket, whistling "Moonlight Shadow")


On 2/9/23 9:04 pm, BB wrote:
>
> On 2/9/23 8:59 pm, BB wrote:
>>
>> On 2/9/23 8:37 pm, Martin Fischer wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Are the "example" programs well documented?
>>>>
>>>> you can post them here...
>>>> http://gambaswiki.org/wiki/app <http://gambaswiki.org/wiki/app>
>>>>
>>>> and here...
>>>> https://forum.gambas.one/viewforum.php?f=13&sid=02b6ad70ecd1d329705bcd041622459e. 
>>>> <https://forum.gambas.one/viewforum.php?f=13&sid=02b6ad70ecd1d329705bcd041622459e.>.. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's a few other forums too.
>>>>
>>>> BruceS
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bruce,
>>>
>>> now I'm confused...
>>>
>>> First of all, "well documented" is very subjective.
>>> - Are these examples as well documented as the other examples
>>> distributed with gambas? Yes :-)
>>> - Are they documented good enough? Depends. They try to show a single
>>> thing. They are minimal. Not much documentation needed then. But surely
>>> they do not explain all knowledge that is required to build them. For
>>> example: the database examples use a DataSource control and arrange the
>>> data-bound controls as children of it. Why? That's something the gambas
>>> documentation shall explain. It's not documented as part of the 
>>> example.
>>> And that's fine.
>>>
>>> After this rant: here's how I see it as a learner of gambas:
>>> When I want to learn something new I do:
>>> 1. Read the documentation.
>>> 2. Go over tutorials. I used the examples distributed with gambas for
>>> that. Some were helpful, some not. That's normal.
>>> 3. Write my own examples to familiarize myself with the ecosystem.
>>>
>>> The examples distributed with gambas are tutorials. This means:
>>> - there shall be many of them...
>>> - each area of gambas shall be covered by at least one example
>>> - each example shall focus on one topic only (sure: not always 
>>> possible)
>>>
>>> This means that an example is not some random app that someone wrote to
>>> solve a real (business-)problem. They are meant to be educational!
>>>
>>> I see the apps mentioned in the wiki and hosted on the software farm as
>>> the real application that do something useful.
>>>
>>> To sum this up:
>>> - educational, tutorial-style examples: distributed with gambas
>>> - real apps: hosted on software farm and/or mentioned in the wiki/app
>>>
>>> Am I wrong with this view?
>>> What is your take on this?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> ----[ http://gambaswiki.org/wiki/doc/netiquette ]----
>>
>> Some may disagree but I reckon that well documented means a total 
>> overload of everything you thought of while writing that code. In 
>> defense and after a decade or so of revisiting my own sometimes years 
>> old code, the phrases "FIIK if I know what I was tying to do here" 
>> and similarly "WTF is this real" oft pop into mind. Even then 
>> sometimes the "assumptions" astound me ("Where the hell did you get 
>> the idea that this database query will always return a non-zero 
>> result?", "Why does nullifying a list based control mean that I cant 
>> find the row that I just deleted a moment ago?" "Who wrote this **** 
>> anyway?" etc).
>>
>> These days I have taken a leaf out of the un-lamented Ward 
>> Cunningham's doctrine and usually start writing a "story" inside any 
>> new procedure to try and explain to myself 
>> what-it-is-thet-it-is-thet-I-am-trying-to-do-here. Unless the proc is 
>> evidently so simple as to be taken for granted.
>>
>> You know what? Documentation costs, bucketloads on Monday, a few 
>> shekles on Tuesday, a grain of sand on Friday, possibly a groat next 
>> week. But a concubines ransom thereafter.
>>
>> ymmv
>>
>> The other bruce
>>
> Sorry, that last one should have been "But a lack of documentation 
> will cost you a concubines ransom thereafter."