Quote: I am one of those people that, when completely familiar with the syntax, can code a thousand line program in a few hours, then spend less than half that debugging it. I rarely have to "plan out" the design of anything.
Well, there's the problem then. If you don't plan out things, you will never be able to deal with large projects. I do the same with most small scripts and programs, but for anything reasonably large, you NEED to start planning ahead. If you insist that you can just "see the design in my head" then you will get lost, as you have here.
Quote: I admit that this may be biasing my thinking a bit, since what *seems* obvious to me in the big picture can look really complicated to someone else.
Interesting thing to say right after saying that you don't bother planning things out. Ignoring the possiblity that people aren't seing the "big picture" when saying that they are the ones who sit and plan things out just dosen't make any sense.
Quote: The problem isn't that I don't think fast enough, its that I think too fast and can literally change perspective in mid sentence, at times I am trying to get something complicated out. Been more than a few times I have gone back to read something, only to realize that I have literally produced two halves of two completely different sentences as one written sentence... Kind of problematic when trying to parse the result. lol
And of course, you can't possibly write out your notes in notepad, and then just copy them over after you've gone over them a few times. Or you could do what I do, and post a small note, then go back with the lovely edit option that the forums provides for you.
Quote: The problem isn't that I don't think fast enough, its that I think too fast and can literally change perspective in mid sentence, at times I am trying to get something complicated out.
Ah yes, this does wonders for proving that you can just bang out a program in a matter of hours and only need a small debugging phase. I have a similar problem. It results in me needing to plan out quite a bit more than I believe I need to, and then double check everything I've written to make sure I haven't made any little mistakes. Then, after all that, I can start debugging, which should take forever with any decent program. There are still bug fixes going on with MUSHclient, and it's been the most stable thing on my computer since I've started using it. I think I've had notepad crash (stupid poor overflow handling) more than MC.
Quote: However, you are still admonishing me about the subtlety and complexity of something that *if* you understood it either you would have the answers I need.
No one has mentioned this at all. In fact, what people have been saying is that if you understood certain things better, then YOU would have the answers you needed. Which is why a few of us have suggested that you write a sample of what you are trying to do. It would make things clearer, and you would learn more about the topic than you would by saying "So this guy over here said that this is possible." Not only that, but you would have something to point to showing that what you are saying can be done is possible, which is hard to argue with.
Quote: This is like arguing the subtlety and complexity of crystal formation, when maybe the art of producing them is little more than adding food coloring to some high saturated sugar water and dropping a sugar cube on a string into it. That it "looks" subtle and complex may be a given. But neither of us is in a position to say that it really is, unless we understand the mechanics of how to produce it. Once you do, at least in the case of colored sugar crystal candies, its certainly subtle, but hardly complex.
Very good analogy, but I would take it a step further. The crystals are simple, true. But try and get them to grow in a very specific pattern, like an actual cube. Basic elements thrown together can have unpredicted complications when pulled to a larger goal.
Quote: Seriously, ignorance is not an insult, its just a statement of fact. Admitting to it means you can progress in understanding, rather than just making snide remarks about how the other guy that is progressing, how ever slowly, is on a wild goose chase.
Very good... now please admit it and move on. I honestly haven't seen anyone here deny ignorance as much as you have. Even when faced with proof, such as the whole events are objects thing, you have completely skipped over the proof, going on later to try and assert your incorrect definition in later posts.
Quote: Well, I am Antonio Salieri in this case, sadly, there seems to be a lack of Mozarts around. lol
<sarcasm>Umm... you want to teach our children and have theories surronding your involvement in our deaths?</sarcasm> Here's an suggestion. Stop making analogies. They can be easily and unintentionally misinterpreted to the end of days. Just say what you mean and be done with it instead of attempting to add more fuel to the fire. |