Just because something is “substantive” to you doesn’t mean that it is “substantive” to anyone else. You can say it’s “substantive” to a friend, a complete stranger, or a complete stranger’s children.
In fact, the only reason we are discussing this is because of the fact that this is something we will be talking about. It can be used by everyone for any purpose, and so it should be.
I think people are generally aware of this fact because of the many posts we have had on the substainable post. Its so well researched and thought out that it actually makes a lot of sense. We are, however, limited to the people that actually own the software and the people that are using it, so we can only discuss this with the people we actually know well.
Yeah, with the software and the users, it’s hard to talk about it because you’d never know. Even if you had a software product that looked exactly like our software, it would be hard to explain to someone who isn’t aware of this technology how to use it. As far as the software goes, it’s actually a pretty big step in the right direction. We’ve seen the first few days of testing and the people using our software have been kind of impressed.
The other day we were talking to one of the developers of substainable and asked him why he decided to do this. He said it was because substainable is a new type of software, and that there are a lot of people who are scared of the technology and wont do anything about it. Thats pretty much how I feel about it too, but I digress.
One of the things that makes substainable really shine is that it allows you to create reusable code. That is, you dont have to write a new piece of code for every situation that you encounter, and you can create a new “substainable” class just by making some minor tweaks to the existing code. This lets you make reusable functionality without breaking anything.
I think it’s a good idea to reuse code and build on it, but not necessarily a good idea to break code. In fact, I think it’s a pretty good idea to break it! And if you do it wrong, it won’t get fixed.
Substantially the same codebase might be a good idea, but might be a bad idea to break.
There is a lot of debate going on about the merits of using only one class for a project. I personally think that it’s important to think about whether or not using substainable code in a particular project is a good idea.
Lets start with the first part of that statement, that code is the same code that makes up the game. The second part is that building on code is a good idea. The third part is that breaking it is not a good idea. So lets start with the first statement.