Hi Mike,

You're irritated, but I've read the following from this thread.

Whichever way you go, keep the number of classes in each prg or vcx down to one. See http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~PRGvsVCX~VFP and http://fox.wikis.com/wc.dll?Wiki~VFPSetProcedure~VFP in Message #1040508

Which to me leaves little room for intepretation than you saying this is the only viable way to start your project. You even did not indicate it was only your 'believe' or 'opinion'. You've stated several times that your way is not simple 'personal preference' and that you could prove your 'opinion'. You give the impression to speak for everyone, though you accuse me of doing that in Message #1041828

Further in Message #1040937 you said: 'There should indeed be discussion. There is a problem that needs to be solved.', thereby inviting people to discuss the matter. Yet you complain I stepped in because you already knew my take on the issue, even though my response was not at all offending and keepin on the track of the issue.

In Message #1041336 you say the document section is a workarround and in the next reply you say "The document section would not be required if the PROBLEM was not so widespread." While you refused to answer whether listing all method code in an open form or class is useless to the average developper or how this could be solved otherwise.

Also in Message #1041336, you say: "Every physical thing has a name. Every piece of code and class should be treated like a physical thing. That is IMO the essence of object oriented programming." totally ignoring that classes are about abstractions of both real world and abstract objects or processes and that that there could be a hierarchy of abstract subclasses to describe real world object like:

life - Animal - Mamal - Bear like - Grizzly bear

In your irritation of my presence, you bring on another topic trying to drift off the main topic and heat up the fire by saying: "You have no qualms about having a duplicate code in the same method of different classes". I did not bring that in in this thread, in fact we never discussed this on the thread. And though the above seems odd to anyone who read it, there is much more to it than you say in this statement, making it cheap trick to denegerate my comments on the main topic and drift away.

In the matter of Tight coupling and cohesions you take this as an personal opinion and my definition is different from yours. Well again look up tight coupling and cohesion http://www.waysys.com/ws_content_bl_pgssd_ch06.html. You'll see that coupling within a module is referred to as cohesion (As I did say in the original message). Again not my interpretation, but the clear definition.

You also, drew the analogy between searching items in the room and searching a class. In Message #1041336 you say: "If I fill a room with toys without sorting them that is clutter. If there is only one ball, you can find it with lots of digging. If the things are sorted alphabetically and arranged on the walls you can find it faster."

When I replied that searching things where they belong (Clothes in the wardrobe classlib, CDs in the CDCollection classlib, Books in the Bookshelf classlib) you quickly replied the analogy was wrong (while I found it to be a perfect example).

Hence you came with the example of building a wall, where you still wanted sort everything alphabettically, though then different types of nails and screws still would be seperated from eachother because Steel nails, Iron nails, Short screws, flathead screws are sorted alphabetically.

Then you replied that you cannot draw an analogy between organizing classes and the realworld because classes are blueprints < SIGH >.

BTW, have you ever used the toolbox where you already could classify your classes ?? Personally I did not, because I don't have a problem with the way I work now, but to me it seems this a good way of organizing your classes.

Conclusion: Mike, you really seem to have a problem with my writings for some reason. I respect your opinion (just as Cetin did in this thread), but I don't agree with the arguments and the way you try to force your way through. Enough is enough. Your opinion is already on the wiki (and I find that it there is more objective that you stated here: how does that come ?). However seen the inconsistencies, drifting, changing analogies and emotional agressive attitude in this thread I don't attach much value on what you have written here.

I've taken your points on the wiki in my intellectual baggage to see what I can do with it in the future. For now I wish you best in refinding yourself and hope you post better thought through and less emotional driven arguments in the future.

Best,

Walter,























>>It is a free world last time I looked. I did not notice the original message, I did notice your statement though.
>
>It is a free world. Go get lost in it somewhere.