bphlpt, on 21 September 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:
Some like to have redundant checks everywhere, trying to make their code absolutely bulletproof. It will never happen, human error, machine error, and fate will prevent it, but you can get close.
I call that foolproof
And of course:
Dougals Adams said:
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Usually it is a no-win/no-win situation, what you get at the end is more complex code/script, and anyway someone will be able to have it break or do something else.
I believe more in making the bare minimum checks and make the final user break it at will until he/she learns how to use it properly
, i.e. make him/her more responsible, or if you prefer to behave more proactively than the usual "passive mode", expecially since batches/little .vbs scripts are normally a QUICK workaround around an issue or a more convenient way to run a set of otherwise complex commands.
The fact that I know not any other programming language and the usual guy which comes out saying "it can't be done in batch" sometimes causes the creation of one of my senselessly complex
batches (that a real programmer would write in a much more suitable language), but they still remain "quick and dirty tools" or (working
) POC's, I would say that a suitable adjective for batches (and to a lesser extent .vbs) is "legacy":
legacy (adj) — A pejorative term used in the computer industry meaning "it works"
Now, the essence of a "quick and dirty" tool is to be BOTH quick AND dirty.....