Visual Basic as gui engine?

[Krice]

a task ably performed by a huge array of existing pieces of software with mature, user friendly interfaces

I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about. There is no huge amount of software in this scene (pixel drawing) and most of them have some kind of UI style I don't like. Or they cost money which I don't like either. Bigger software like paint.net and GIMP are hopelessly slow and sluggish when you paint in pixel level, plus they don't have all the required tools or features. When you draw pixel art you need snappy response and ultra simple user interface. GIMP is like trying to draw with an elephant.

[mushroom patch]

-________-

I got tired of listening to people talk about how standard software tools are too slow for their taste about 15 years ago. It feels like you're working out of an internet trolling best practices guide written in 2001.

"Paint is too slow." God.

[Krice]

I got tired of listening to people talk about how standard software tools are too slow for their taste about 15 years ago.

I'm tired of listening comments from people who have no clue.

[mushroom patch]

Maybe you should write a faster web browser.

[chooseusername]

Yeah, this software is not a wheel thing only goes so far. If you're talking about something whose purpose is literally just fiddling with values in an array of numbers (I mean, editing icons in a damn hex editor wouldn't be a completely crazy thing to do), a task ably performed by a huge array of existing pieces of software with mature, user friendly interfaces, that seems about as much like a wheel as any piece of software could be.

You are making a strawman argument that basically agrees with me that the premise behind "reinventing the wheel" only applies in certain situations.  Then you decide that's dismissed my point.  Let me try be clearer:

My point is that when people trot out this expression, they do so as an absolute.  Like:

Reinventing the wheel is not cool, unless you're learning / want to learn / really enjoy the process.

And this is the problem with expressions like this.  People glom onto them and trot them out as arguments to help make their point, with the assumption that the expression stands on it's own - in lieu of making a real argument that stands on it's own.

We all agree that there are certain things that it is pointless to rewrite, like web browsers.  There's no contention there.

[Bear]

At work, I try to limit it to reinventing square or triangular wheels.

If it's somewhere between pentagonal and octagonal, I'll reinvent it if I'm working for myself, but at work, I won't do it unless the shock absorbers are likely not to be good enough.

If it's better than octagonal, I try to deny the urge to reinvent.  But sometimes I still  do - mostly while the back of my brain is working on a different problem but not ready to write code to it yet, or while waiting for design inspiration to strike.

[reaver]

Let me try be clearer:
My point is that when people trot out this expression, they do so as an absolute.  Like:

Reinventing the wheel is not cool, unless you're learning / want to learn / really enjoy the process.

And this is the problem with expressions like this.  People glom onto them and trot them out as arguments to help make their point, with the assumption that the expression stands on it's own - in lieu of making a real argument that stands on it's own.

I don't understand what's your problem with my statement is. What is the point that you think I'm trying to make? What is the point that *you* are trying to make?

Let me try be clearer:
We all agree that there are certain things that it is pointless to rewrite, like web browsers.  There's no contention there.

Who's we? If that's not an absolute statement, I don't know what is.  And you say a few lines earlier that *I* make an absolute statement? Funny. To stop beating the expression, let's go to a definition from wiki:

"To reinvent the wheel is to duplicate a basic method that has already previously been created or optimized by others" (emphasis mine)

What I mean is, if you want to duplicate work being done by others and you don't enjoy or have interest in the process, ie. it's a means to an end, it's pointless. If you, on the other hand, enjoy the process or want to learn by it (as some people also learn by doing, not just by reading source code), then go ahead. That's again just *my* opinion and I do not imply that as "that's the way of the world". 

[Bear]

To me there's three points in reinventing a wheel.

The main point is if the wheel is one that has been developed badly by earlier inventors (where the original inventor gave us the square wheel, and some later engineer reasoned that, since the corners were a problem, a triangular wheel would be better... and it formed a trend.  (cough XML cough cough) 

A second point is if the wheel doesn't fit.  EG, if I'm developing an artistic-license project and someone has invented a perfectly good GPL wheel, there's not a darn thing wrong with it except that you can't thread a GPL wheel onto the end of an Artistic-license axle.  Kind of like SAE versus Metric.  So I'll cheerfully go and invent an Artistic-license wheel and use that instead.

The third point is, yes, I do in fact just plain enjoy it.  But that's sort of mixed up with something else.  For me anyway, working on some things that don't really need to be worked on -- reinventing wheels -- is also a kind of a surface-brain activity I do while pondering deeper design problems in the same program, or as a re-familiarization exercise when I'm getting back into a project after a hiatus.  I learn and remember things about the code while working on 'wheel reinvention' that help clarity to emerge as to how other parts of the code ought to be designed.  And as often as not I find that things I've done since the code was first written make a better version of it easier and clearer.

[mushroom patch]

Yeah, this software is not a wheel thing only goes so far. If you're talking about something whose purpose is literally just fiddling with values in an array of numbers (I mean, editing icons in a damn hex editor wouldn't be a completely crazy thing to do), a task ably performed by a huge array of existing pieces of software with mature, user friendly interfaces, that seems about as much like a wheel as any piece of software could be.

You are making a strawman argument that basically agrees with me that the premise behind "reinventing the wheel" only applies in certain situations.  Then you decide that's dismissed my point.  Let me try be clearer:

I'm not sure that referring to the case at hand qualifies as a strawman. It would seem to me that we have two sides of contention re: "reinventing the wheel" within a larger discussion about Krice's icon maker for imaginary roguelike games. Your position seems to be that the expression has a pernicious effect on software development and, because it is so often applied naively and without consideration to factors outside utility and adoption, shouldn't be used, while the other guy thinks it presents a useful rule of thumb for planning software projects that would reproduce the functionality of existing, mature, and reasonably good quality software.

To the extent that these two opposing views have any bearing on the present discussion, I think the example I consider is pretty fair. And maybe I do agree with you in a broader sense -- it's been known to happen.

My point is that when people trot out this expression, they do so as an absolute.  Like:

Reinventing the wheel is not cool, unless you're learning / want to learn / really enjoy the process.

And this is the problem with expressions like this.  People glom onto them and trot them out as arguments to help make their point, with the assumption that the expression stands on it's own - in lieu of making a real argument that stands on it's own.

We all agree that there are certain things that it is pointless to rewrite, like web browsers.  There's no contention there.

I think the argument that icon editors and icon editing functionality within larger (free, mature, widely used, etc.) software packages exists, has existed for a long time, and is widely used for the purpose of editing icons/tiles/sprites kind of makes the point. "Don't reinvent the wheel" is just a shorthand for a point that seems pretty effectively made in thread, a point that stands on its own independent of the fact that it has been so often made and remade there's well-known slogan.

[Krice]

within a larger discussion about Krice's icon maker for imaginary roguelike games.

It's a tile, not "icon". I don't know what do you mean by imaginary, but if you are a roguelike developer (which I doubt) you should have more respect to another developers like myself. Roguelikes are not easy to create, but I'm telling you that tile editors are not easy either.

[mushroom patch]

within a larger discussion about Krice's icon maker for imaginary roguelike games.

It's a tile, not "icon". I don't know what do you mean by imaginary, but if you are a roguelike developer (which I doubt) you should have more respect to another developers like myself. Roguelikes are not easy to create, but I'm telling you that tile editors are not easy either.

I apologize. I should show the requisite respect when addressing a personage such yourself. It was cheeky of me to suggest that just because no one has seen your major, twenty year roguelike project in ten years, it must not exist.

I don't believe the concern here is that your tile editor will be too simple a challenge for you. People rather feel that the effort might be better spent on your magnum opus. The anticipation among roguelike fans everywhere is palpable. I believe I speak for roguelike fans and developers alike when I implore you to commit yourself anew to that effort. Retire from the petty squabbles of the internet. Forget what meagre assistance you might find among the threads and forums. Use what you know! Go forth and create!

[Krice]

People rather feel that the effort might be better spent on your magnum opus.

I don't think any of my projects (also other than roguelikes and tile editors) is more important than the other. Like many artists before me I'm not creating for people, I'm doing this to keep myself sane.

[mushroom patch]

People rather feel that the effort might be better spent on your magnum opus.

I don't think any of my projects (also other than roguelikes and tile editors) is more important than the other. Like many artists before me I'm not creating for people, I'm doing this to keep myself sane.

I respect your right to keep to yourself. You might help others stay sane if you exercise that right more thoroughly.