From: Paul Stickney <pstickne@...>
Date: 2008-01-06T14:52:30+09:00
Subject: Re: Don't write your own X

Research. Research. Research.
Then, steal... err, borrow the best ideas that suit your goal[s] and
make your own X.

The problem with most software products (including languages) is that
they ignore the lessons of the past--there is nothing wrong with
making your own wheel (because you can make it rounder or with
year-round studs or anti-gravity or bright red...) as long as you
progress to a BETTER (for various definitions of "better") wheel. And
then, of course, software without a purpose is...

(Sometimes it might just be *fun* to write X.)

Of course, the above should be taken in a context where making X
doesn't impede on your ability to earn a living, live happily, or
delay other [software] development.

On Jan 3, 2008 8:53 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> Michael Schuerig wrote:
> > On Friday 04 January 2008, Jay Levitt wrote:
> >> The very same arguments people use about "write your own
> >> authentication system so you know what it does" can be extrapolated
> >> to "write your own framework" - and, from there, to "write your own
> >> language", "build your own computer", and "don't believe anything you
> >> haven't seen with your own eyes".  It's all of a piece.
> >
> > I'd consider it bad advice to tell people to "write your own X so you
> > know what it does." It encourages people to ignore work that has
> > already been done and particularly ignore the thinking that has gone
> > into that work already. What's the point of having your homebrew X that
> > you fully understand, but that is broken-as-designed? Write your own X
> > if you understand the existing alternatives and they can't be made to
> > do what you need.
> >
> > Michael
> >
>
> Well, except for Forth. The traditional way of learning Forth is to
> write your own. :)
>
>