Re: Error Feedback

I pretty much agree with that, my main theme being that it's a better design if the error handling is consistent (and by error handling in this case, I mean how it's displayed to the user and what the user has to do to respond, not how the program handles errors). If EGL's default is good, and I could do the same sort of thing with business rule errors, I'd be happy.

Joe Pluta wrote:

Aaron Bartell wrote:

Please remember that this is a very small fraction of the larger part of an
application, so there really isn't doubling of the application but instead
doubling of checking for valid data for each field. And even then it is
doubled from one method that takes seconds to longer which is also in the
seconds to complete - really a non-issue if you ask me.

Which is fine for one-off applications, but which adds significant amounts of time over the long haul. Where does manual coding of edits become an expensive proposition? Maybe the first time you forget one? Or the first time you miscode one?

Seriously, the argument that it "only takes seconds" is a pretty difficult one to justify to most managers. Programmers say it, but it invariably takes longer. In my experience, it never takes "seconds" to do any programming job, other than one that is automated by a tool.

But this has gone on way far enough. It is easier to do with EGL. It is faster. There are fewer programming errors. If none of that balances out your desire to do it by hand, than that's your choice. Me, I think I'd use automated editing for simple maintenance programs and then use something closer to your design for complex applications.

Joe