Anytime I start to feel like this, I remember that there are probably 1000 other developers that could have come up with a better, faster, more efficient solution.
Anytime you start feeling like you're "The Man", just take a step back and eat some humble pie ;-)
Plus, I hate when people rag on others for trying. Every exercise, no matter how trivial, is a learning experience to *someone*.
By your reasoning:
* No one should even write alternative software. Why even bother with Linux when we already have Windows? Actually, why bother with Windows when we have Unix? Why should Toyota make cars when Ford already makes them?
* Of course, there's always only one solution to any problem; all other solutions are useless, pointless, and a waste of time and effort.
* You are the god of programming, all bow down before Roy! For there is no greater god who can write perfect code every time on the first try! Compile time error checking? Pffft! Roy the Great doesn't need it for he never makes syntax errors. Version 2? Pffft! Roy the Magnificent always gets it right the first time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm the *king* of code reuse and a great denouncer of the "Not Coded Here" syndrome. I totally support using tools already in existence before embarking on building it yourself, but at the same time, I understand that for some, the best way to learn is to build it yourself. And, if what you build doesn't totally suck, hey, you know, maybe someone else can get some use out of it.
It's like reading a book before seeing the movie. Yeah, I can just see the movie, pffft! why bother reading a 1000 page book over 2 weeks when I can see the movie in 3 hours? Well, you'll certainly agree that forming the scenes in your imagination is a fundamentally different experience then watching someone else's vision and imagination.
And yes, you did set yourself up for that ;-)
Well Charles, I'm not sure about the movie vs. reading part, since one if informational and the coding is "creational" in nature, but here's a question:
As a team lead, would you recommend your team to always google for answers if they're not sure of anything? Again, I'm not saying "using". I'm saying "looking around".
That was my main point.
Wow...you can write the same thing in 6 lines that I did in 12 lines. You must be the man! Pretty juvenile.
As I posted, I wrote the macro back in 03. I wrote the macro explicitly not using CreateObject because I don't like using hidden global static functions in the Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll assembly...even in my macros. Actually I don't like using anything in the Microsoft.VisualBasic.dll anywhere. And if you look at Interaction.CreateObject in Reflector you'll see that...wow...amazing...It calls Type.GetTypeByProdId to get the type, then calls Activator.CreateInstance(). How about that?
Then you ding me on the number of lines of code I use. Please! Lets see...your macro always opens up the the second tab and you have to go back to the first tab (unless your still using ODBC as your data provider). And I actually format the connection string to put quotes around it to make it a tad easier for the user.
The motivation for my post is that I saw a useful macro. Then though, "Hey, I've got a macro that people might find useful". That's what blogging is all about. Helping others. Not flaming others.
John: Sorry if i hurt you. I realize that this post can be taken the wrong way if you really try to look into it this way. But it was not a flame, just another point of view of doing things.
I'm fully aware of what happens behind the scenes with MS.VisualBasic and live with it without any problem. I must have missed the fact that you wrote this in 03 (not that it really matters, my points was on the difference in style and readability)
I agree that the community it served when you post this thing. I also believe the community is served even better when several points of view on the same subject (of style and reuse) are posted.
Again, sorry if you've taken this personally. That was not my intention.