Difference between revisions of "Talk:Geometric"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The "Clean" version is, if not 'clean' whatever that means, *MUCH* more readable. I really wouldn't consider using any code that required a legend to decipher the function and variable names, but I can read and therefore more confidently use the more verbose version. Thanks! | The "Clean" version is, if not 'clean' whatever that means, *MUCH* more readable. I really wouldn't consider using any code that required a legend to decipher the function and variable names, but I can read and therefore more confidently use the more verbose version. Thanks! | ||
:It is more of a personal preference really. For me it really jacks up the appearance and readability of my scripts to have lengthy technical user defined functions, for which I already trust to work and only need to know its purpose, input and output. The only case I would see for people to want such extensive names are newcomers to this library or LSL itself. I do agree it was a bit overkill, but the incredible length for something we as humans see as objectively simple wish to see it comparitively minimal on having the least impact on readability. The primary issue I see is the vital documentation I just wasn't able to give immediately, just felt the more technical people might be happy with being able to start bouncing ideas and make cool products. [[User:Nexii_Malthus/GeometricLib|I am working on some documentation though. | :It is more of a personal preference really. For me it really jacks up the appearance and readability of my scripts to have lengthy technical user defined functions, for which I already trust to work and only need to know its purpose, input and output. The only case I would see for people to want such extensive names are newcomers to this library or LSL itself. I do agree it was a bit overkill, but the incredible length for something we as humans see as objectively simple wish to see it comparitively minimal on having the least impact on readability. The primary issue I see is the vital documentation I just wasn't able to give immediately, just felt the more technical people might be happy with being able to start bouncing ideas and make cool products. [[User:Nexii_Malthus/GeometricLib|I am working on some documentation though]]. --[[User:Nexii Malthus|Nexii Malthus]] 03:16, 20 May 2008 (PDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:17, 20 May 2008
The "Clean" version is, if not 'clean' whatever that means, *MUCH* more readable. I really wouldn't consider using any code that required a legend to decipher the function and variable names, but I can read and therefore more confidently use the more verbose version. Thanks!
- It is more of a personal preference really. For me it really jacks up the appearance and readability of my scripts to have lengthy technical user defined functions, for which I already trust to work and only need to know its purpose, input and output. The only case I would see for people to want such extensive names are newcomers to this library or LSL itself. I do agree it was a bit overkill, but the incredible length for something we as humans see as objectively simple wish to see it comparitively minimal on having the least impact on readability. The primary issue I see is the vital documentation I just wasn't able to give immediately, just felt the more technical people might be happy with being able to start bouncing ideas and make cool products. I am working on some documentation though. --Nexii Malthus 03:16, 20 May 2008 (PDT)