Of course not, everything has its place. In my day-to-day work (I’m
an application programmer by trade), I hear time over time that
people want to do “x” because it’s consistent with “y”; never mind
that “x” is wrong, inefficient, or otherwise “smelly”.
We’re talking about different kinds of consistency. In fact, you’re
inducing the question this thread would have benefitted a lot from the
Consistent with what?
Ruby strives for internal consistency, i.e. parts of the whole that
stay consistent with one another. One could try to define it in
abstract and logical terms but Matz has defined it best in terms of
the effect: once you master it, you feel comfortable with it.
I guess too many pick up an objectionable (to put it mildly) reference
when cheking for consistency.
C programmers are used to it, so we should stay consistent with it.''The rest of industry uses Java,
so we should stay consistent with it.’’ Or, as your coworkers
apparently would sat, ``Somebody did it this way, so we should stay
consistent with it.’’
It seems to me that the latter consistency is just a mask put on by
the fear of the new. And I’ve never in my life seen choices based on
fear that wouldn’t backfire. Timebombs, as someone else in this
thread sharply put it.
To add another quote to the mix (and I apologize for not having a
cite; I’m going from memory); “there are 2 types of fools in the
world; one says “this is old and therefore good”, the other says
"this is new, and therefore better”". I’m often trying to figure out
which fool I’m trying to be less of at that moment.
I strive to be the one that says ``this is new, and therefore try
it.’’ You’d be amazed at how much more of a fool is this deemed by
both those two types.
On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 08:38:29AM +0900, Michael Campbell wrote: