Linked by Allen Boyles on Mon 7th Nov 2011 09:46 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 496364
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-13
The problem with 'elegant' is that there really is no such thing, because your idea of elegant is somebody else's idea of ass-backwards thinking. The best you can hope for is a set of defaults that will piss off the least amount of people.
As for built-in features vs plugins, I'm not really sure how offering plugin support makes things any easier, for either the developer OR the user. For the developer, instead of having to do a bunch of testing on built-in features every time you change something, now you've got to test a bunch of plugin APIs. And it's even worse for users, because now instead of having to bring up a dialog box or a config file to change option, they must go searching for a plugin to do their bidding, who's code may or may not be thoroughly tested, and the plugin may or may not work when a new version of the app comes out.