[oclug] Form and Function

[Brad Barnett]

On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:50:30 -0400
Brad Barnett <bb at l8r.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:29:46 -0400
> "Francis J. A. Pinteric" <linuxdoctor at linux.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:53:35 -0400 (EDT)
> > Phil Tanguay <ptanguay at magma.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > This function over form business is a crock.  Unless you can
> > > guarantee that you won't have any bugs AND that you'll stay with our
> > > company for the next 15 years, form is VERY important.
> > > 
> > 
> > Both form AND function are both extremely important in software
> > development.  What many people don't realize is that simply getting
> > the job done is not enough, but being able to efficiently track down
> > bugs and maintainability of the software by others than the original
> > author(s) is also important.  Maintainability (not to mention
> > documentation) is crucial in software that is to be used for critical
> > purposes, especially embedded systems where they control machinery.
> 
> You're missing the point though, Francis.  Without function, form is
> useless.  It is nothing.  Therefore, form is primary, and function is
> secondary.

Obviously I have a typo above. ;)

"Therefore, function is primary, and form is secondary."

> 
> Again, as I mentioned in another email, this does _not_ reduce form's
> necessity.  It simply means that without function, form has little use. 
> It also means that inhibiting function with form is equally useless, and
> that form must _always_ remain secondary.
> 
> > 
> > To favour function over form is like saying that the means justifies
> > the ends, and the slippery slope that implies. Similarily, favouring
> > form over function is like dogmatism over practical experience.  There
> > is need of, and room for, both.
> > 
> 
> Yes, there is need and room for both, and they are very important. 
> However, function is always primary.  I can still get to work in a
> rusted out bucket of a car, but I can't in a car with a perfect body
> job, but a blown engine.
> 
> Equally so, code that looks like crap and runs is better than code that
> looks good and does not run.  The crappy looking code is certainly in
> need of good form, but it still functions, thereby proving that form is
> secondary.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that ugly people can't think? ;)
> 
> -- 
> OCLUG general discussion list
> OCLUG at lists.oclug.on.ca
> http://www.oclug.on.ca/mailman/listinfo/oclug