>PMFJI, but thisis driving me nutty. you once again are arguing a line that is highly frustrating because you say "why" to every answer you get. it's kind of like;
>
>Stealing is wrong.
>Why?
>Because it takes a way a person's rightful property
>Why is that wrong?
>because each person has rights to life . liberty, etc.
>Why?
>

Actually, the thread has been more like:

Stealing is wrong.
Why?
Because It's wrong.
Why?
Because I said so.
So?

>The point is that MANY best practices can not be summed up in an easily communicable set of neat rules.

Without addressing the points you made below (I tried to do so in my last message to JVP), this is BS.

If I am not mistaken, you and I have had a similar discussion before, on at least one occasion. You are fond of calling certain techniques "amateurish", just because you prefer another technique. Like with this discussion, in our last, you made a blanket claim and acted insulted when someone asked why. My only point is that advice like you are fond of giving should be considered dangerous. An intelligent programmer _should_ ask why, and someone giving advice online should be prepared to back that advice up with at least some sound reasoning, and preferrably well-formed real world examples.

>If you don't get it - then there is really nothing that could be said to make you get it

By "get it" do you mean agree with you? When you say "get it" you imply that there are one or more issues in the matter that I don't understand. If this is the case (I don't think it is :-)), then understanding comes with explanation, and explanation is what I've been attempting to evoke. If you are willing to give advice, you should be willing to give explanation. In my opinion, the former is useless (counter-productive even) without willingness to give the latter.