Advanced Topic - Doing it differently.
polpak at yahoo.com
Sat Apr 9 05:19:49 New Zealand Standard Time 2005
--- Christopher Bunting <cbunting99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> During this whole thread, I started to get off topic and was trying to
> get back to the point, but what happened? I was trying to post some
> code to show how easy I thought it was to do various things. But not
> one person asked me why I didn't do it in C. Not one person had asked
> why I had done anything in any other way. So I felt was pointed out
> again only to have everyone who's been replying to this thread have a
> little laughing spree on me..
Ah.. Well I didn't ask why you chose not to do it in C because I know that for
some projects certain languages are better suited than others. If you feel more
comfortable working in D, Python, whatever it couldn't bother me less. The only
reason I responded at all was due to a lot of FUD disseminating about both
using C and using SQL. So I mearly corrected you on the facts.
Sorry if you felt you were being attacked.
> If you look even futher back a few posts more, I submitted a whole
> block of an api for sqlite in C. But did everyone assume that I wrote
> the C api? It would appear so..
> In regards to Mike's reply.. The code he submitted is small and
> clean.. I took the C code directly off of the SQLite website.
> http://www.sqlite.org/quickstart.html It was far from any kind of
> code contest.. Maybe Mike should submit his api to sqlite.
No he shouldn't. The code you posted and the code Mike posted were functionally
very different. The SQLLite people would only use Mike's code if they wanted to
demonstrate how to create a database, not if they wanted to show how to use
their API to query the database and return a result.
The problem was that the D code you posted was intended to mearly create a
database. While the C code version you took from the website connects to the
database, passes through a query which it takes as a program argument, gets the
result (with error checking), and passes that result to a callback function.
You then implied that using D was a more elegant because it required less code
to do the same thing. The point was that they didn't do the same thing, so the
comparison was moot. Then Mike wrote a code that _was_ functionally the same as
your D example to show that there is really very little difference between the
C and the D apis for SQL lite.
I hope that clarifies my position at least. If you don't want to use C, fine.
More power to you. If you don't want to use SQL, same deal. But your inital
post was basically critisizing the mud development community for still using C,
and for putting so much of an emphasis on SQL. Those sorts of comments will
tend to get peoples hackles raised, especially when your complaints about the
two technologies in question are, for the most part, groundless.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
GCS/IT/L/S/O d-(+) s++: a-(?) C++++$ UBLS++++$
P+++(--)$ L++++$ E--- W+$ N !o K? w(---) !O
M- !V PS+ PE(-) Y+ PGP->+ t+ 5 X++ R(+) tv+@
b+(++) !DI+++ D G(-) e>+++ h---() r+++ y+++(++)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
ROM mailing list
ROM at rom.org
Unsubscribe here ->>> http://www.rom.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rom
More information about the MUD-Dev