<<< Now, this is one of the very few texts I´ve ever read that really illuminates the "soul" part of software writing (and its relevance to photography is deeply there). >>> Good software writing is indeed more of an art than a skill. OK, in the newsgroups you will always find those that claim having to learn the semantics of a language (the "rules" if you like") is inherently counter-creative, but then again, you get that in photography too. What is good software? Or should I ask, what is "artistically written" software. A bit like what is a good photo. Well, it depends whether you are a businessman or an artist maybe: if the customer is happy to pay good money for it then it's good? >From an artistic viewpoint good "IMO" is simple - no more needed than necessary. Simple modules/compositions are harder (much harder) to achieve and is usually what distinguishes the novice writer/photographer. What can I leave out? What distracts from, rather than clarifies/adds value to the code/image. Also, of course, there is getting it right first time: it is much easier to write clean code/take a good photo that have to spend hours debuging/photoshopping later. Good artistic code/photos are not (again IMO) usually cluttered, that is measured by thier complexity/complexity but but by the writer/photographer's clarity of vision. That cannot be taught: it can only be learnt. Bob -- Whatever you Wanadoo: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/ This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
