[...]

I read an article a while back, sorry I can't remember the source,
pointing out how developer's desire to do a rewrite/refactor of code is
not a good idea since all regressions and bugs can come back and all of
that effort was lost. That said, I'm always suggesting the need for
refactoring at every job i've been at, so I may be a hypocrite.

If it's the article I'm thinking of, it's this:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

But just because some guy wrote it on his blog don't make it automatically true or apply to all projects. IMO of any code I've ever read, Geany's is most due for some re-design/cleanup/re-factoring :)

There is a lot of good industry evidence to support Stevens concern, its far from one blog. But as Matthew points out, any application that has grown organically without a plan is going to need a wash and brush up from time to time. Geany is far from the worst I've seen, and far from the best. The trick is to judge the timing right. If we have equal numbers of upset "Luddites" and upset "fanboys of the new" we might be about right :)

Maybe these comments refer more to the change of direction thread, since
it sounds like vala compiles to C anyway, and would just be extending
the way we can code things rather than re-writing or re-defining what we
are doing.

Sort of, but it's also a tool that can greatly facilitate the changes being discussed in the other thread.

Its not simply starting to use a new language that will improve things, its the plan for where and how (Vala, C++, Haskell etc) will be used to improve the software design that will give the benefits. And thats indeed what I am trying to get to with the other thread.

Cheers

Lex

Cheers,
Matthew Brush

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel