RE: What counts as technically slick?

[Gwecnal@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:30:26 -0500, "DeLong, Eric" 
<EDeLong@Sallybeauty.com> writes:

>  I definitely fall into the technical camp, and like you I see no value to
>  "dumbing down" to the least common denominator. 
> snip
>  ... whenever I hear a
>  programmer complaining about "having to learn something new", I feel the
>  distinct urge to (edited due to graphic content and adult language). 
>  
>  It seems sometimes like striving for excellence is a bad thing. Good enough
>  is the high-water mark, and barely adequate is the norm.

I guess we need to strive for a balance - write the most technically slick 
solutions
we can in the time allotted.  I've seen systems fail for both reasons -- 
written using
outdated techniques because the programmer 'didn't have time to learn the new
stuff' and so did not meet the need AND systems that took so long to come 
on line due to the learning curve of the programmer trying every trick in the
book that the need was past before the solution was available.  I guess the
programmer that cannot use ALL the tools - from input primary matching
records to all API screen, data, file, platform, carbon-based-life-form 
independent
client-server, JAVA, object-oriented, fully buzzword compliant systems needs
to learn more.
If someone in your shop is using a technique YOU do not understand, YOU
are the one that needs to learn.
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---