wasting development time (was)

[Andrew Bennetts]

On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 09:01:05AM +0000, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 05:10:18AM +0000, Brandon Van Every wrote:
> >>
> >> The C++ way to deal with [unforseeable functionality] is the virtual
> function.  If you
> >> cannot forsee at least that much of your design, then you are
> >> chasing shadows.  Maybe your particular problem domain requires that
> >> shadows be chased.  Mine don't.
> >
> > Or am I misunderstanding what this thread is talking about?
> 
> I think this thread is about somewhat forseeable vs. totally unforseeable
> design choices.  I say, there are plenty of problem domains where you can
> partly forsee what you need.  My 3D code is one of those.  If you can partly
> forsee what you need, a C++ virtual function is a plenty adequate answer to
> the problem of design flexibility.  Infinite flexibility in the face of the
> totally unforseeable doesn't get you anywhere, at some point you still have
> to figure out what you're doing.

Heh, that's a different answer to what another poster gave to my question :)

If people aren't even talking about the same thing, it's no wonder they
can't agree...

-Andrew.