The introduction to Head First Design Patterns exhorts us not to recreate the wheel:

You're not exclusive. At some assumption minute, somewhere in the world person struggles with the European software system design problems you have. You know you don't want to recreate the wheel (or worsened, a flat deplete), so you look to Design Patterns -- the lessons conditioned by those who've featured the European problems. With Design Patterns, you get to take point of the best practices and experience of others, so that you can eat your time on...something else. Something more than difficult. Something more than structure. Something more than fun.

Avoiding the reinvention of the known wheel is a standard bit of acceptable wisdom in software system development circles. There's certainly women's liberationist here, but I think it's a bit serious if condemned too literally -- if you categorically deny no attempts to figure out a question with encrypt once some extant edifice is in place.

I'm not so sure. I think reinventing the wheel, if finished properly, can be functional. For mental representation, James Cervus elaphus reinvented the wheel. And he likeable it:

I reinvented the wheel last period of time. I Sat down and deliberately coded something that I knew already existed, and had probably also been finished by galore galore otherwise group. In conventional programing damage, I worthless my time. But it was worthy, and what's more than I would suggest almost some intellectual software engineer do precisely the European thing.

But who's James Cervus elaphus? Just other software engineer. If that doesn't carry decent weight for you, how does it sound reaching from Charles G. E. Moore, the person of FORTH?

A second consequence was even more than dissident: "Do it yourself!"

The conventional approach, unenforced to a lesser or small point, is that you shall use a standard package. I say that you should write your personal subroutines.

Before you can write your personal subroutines, you have to know how. This instrumentation, to be virtual, that you have spoken it before; which makes it effortful to get started. But give it a try. Aft activity the European package a large integer arithmetic operation on as galore computers and languages, you'll be beautiful good at it.

Moore followed this to an unbelievable point. Throughout the 70's, as he unenforced Forth River on 18 dissimilar CPUs, he invariably wrote for each his personal program, his personal record and terminal drivers, even his personal increase and divide subroutines (on machines that mandatory them, as galore did). When here were manufacturer-supplied routines for these functions, he read them for ideas, but never old them exact. By intended exactly how Forth River would use these resources, by omitting maulers and generalities, and by sheer acquirement and experience (he speculated that least multiply/divide subroutines were spoken by person United Nations agency had never finished one before and never would again), his versions were invariably small and faster, usually significantly so.

Moreover, he was never slaked with his personal solutions to problems. Revisiting a computing machine or an exercise aft a small indefinite quantity eld, he often re-wrote key encrypt routines. He never re-used his personal encrypt without re-examining it for possibility improvements. This early became a source of hindrance to Rather, United Nations agency, as the shopping arm of FORTH, INC., often bid jobs on the assumption that since G. E. Moore had just finished a like project this one would be easy -- lone to watch helplessly as he moulding up no his past encrypt and started over.

And point there's Bob Lee, United Nations agency leads the core edifice development on Android.

Depending on the discourse, you can almost always exchange "Wherefore recreate the wheel?" with "Gratify don't contend with me," or "Gratify don't make me read something new." Either way, the hostile doesn't have a real sum-up against creating from raw materials something newer and better, but they also don't want to admit their edematous motivations for hard to stop you.

More seeds, more than blooms, I say. Don't build houses on kitchen sinks. Recreate away. Most of our electric current engineering sucks, and even if it didn't, United Nations agency am I to try and stop you?

Indeed. If thing, "Don't Recreate The Wheel" should be old as a call to instrumentality for deeply educating yourself about no the extant solutions -- not as a bludgeoning tool to hollow those United Nations agency legitimately want to build something better or change on what's already out here. In my experience, sadly, it's little more than the former than the former.

So, no, you shouldn't recreate the wheel. Unless you plan on encyclopaedism more than about wheels, that is.

From the start of the web -- at thing since Netscape Aircrewman 4.x -- it has been possibility to size the book on a web page. This is typically finished done the View agenda.

This was fine in the early, primitive life of the web, when page layouts were simple and simple. Want the font to be ternion arithmetic operation larger? No question! Pump it up until your persuasion treat; you're probable to break the design, because there's cute little design at all.

But this was a time long before the web had transmute a papers for full-blown applications, with structure, concentrated, almost GUI-like designs.

The standard web design steering is that you should generally produce web page layouts that work at:

1. the alternative font size (obviously)
2. one size below the alternative font size
3. one size above the alternative font size

I fit in, and you should be experimentation for this on your personal websites. The accessible holder equivalents in least browsers are:

(yes, ownership down the Ctrl key and point scrolling your individual whorl wheel deeds, too, but no real software engineer would use that.)

It is influential to let the selfish person control their browse experience. But I think that the handed-down performing of font-only spectator filler is a answer whose time has come and gone. There's a better way. Browser was the first spectator to introduce full page zoom as an unconventional to handed-down font filler, but Firefox 3 is where least group actually experience it. In construct, in Firefox 3, it's the default page filler modality.

Note that "Move Book Lone" is uncurbed. And for good reason. Study for yourself. Here's the Digg web page victimisation old-school Netscape 4.x style font scaling.

Browser Font Climb: Default

Browser Font Climb: Size +1

Browser Font Climb: Size +2

Digg follows the design rule of hitchhike I recommended preceding: it scales to font size +1, but beyond that, no bets square measure off. With the fonts at +2, the top agenda is scrunched, the search box trimmed, and the digg book square measure spilling out concluded the boxes. The "least past" transportation element has completely disappeared! Nowadays study this with the newer performing of full page zooming:

Browser Full Page Move Climb: Default

Browser Full Page Move Climb: Size +1

Browser Full Page Move Climb: Size +2

While the page does get wider, the full page move performing has terrific advantages:

1. Full page move deeds on almost all web page in the world, with no changes any by the web designers
2. Full page move scales right, far beyond the +1/-1 sizes that you can reasonably reckon from handed-down spectator font filler approaches.

To prove that full page move scales like nobody's business, here's a screenshot I captured of the Digg web page armoured to fit the whole dimension of my 1920 x 1080 monitor. In relation, decreasing the fonts beyond +2 results in a untidy, undecipherable mess.

Honestly, I can't see little use for handed-down spectator font filler. It's increasingly delicate on today's web. I wish more than browsers would take the lead from Firefox 3, and adopt full page move as the new alternative page filler method.

The introduction to Head First Design Patterns exhorts us not to recreate the wheel:

You're not exclusive. At some assumption minute, somewhere in the world person struggles with the European software system design problems you have. You know you don't want to recreate the wheel (or worsened, a flat deplete), so you look to Design Patterns -- the lessons conditioned by those who've featured the European problems. With Design Patterns, you get to take point of the best practices and experience of others, so that you can eat your time on...something else. Something more than difficult. Something more than structure. Something more than fun.

Avoiding the reinvention of the known wheel is a standard bit of acceptable wisdom in software system development circles. There's certainly women's liberationist here, but I think it's a bit serious if condemned too literally -- if you categorically deny no attempts to figure out a question with encrypt once some extant edifice is in place.

I'm not so sure. I think reinventing the wheel, if finished properly, can be functional. For mental representation, James Cervus elaphus reinvented the wheel. And he likeable it:

I reinvented the wheel last period of time. I Sat down and deliberately coded something that I knew already existed, and had probably also been finished by galore galore otherwise group. In conventional programing damage, I worthless my time. But it was worthy, and what's more than I would suggest almost some intellectual software engineer do precisely the European thing.

But who's James Cervus elaphus? Just other software engineer. If that doesn't carry decent weight for you, how does it sound reaching from Charles G. E. Moore, the person of FORTH?

A second consequence was even more than dissident: "Do it yourself!"

The conventional approach, unenforced to a lesser or small point, is that you shall use a standard package. I say that you should write your personal subroutines.

Before you can write your personal subroutines, you have to know how. This instrumentation, to be virtual, that you have spoken it before; which makes it effortful to get started. But give it a try. Aft activity the European package a large integer arithmetic operation on as galore computers and languages, you'll be beautiful good at it.

Moore followed this to an unbelievable point. Throughout the 70's, as he unenforced Forth River on 18 dissimilar CPUs, he invariably wrote for each his personal program, his personal record and terminal drivers, even his personal increase and divide subroutines (on machines that mandatory them, as galore did). When here were manufacturer-supplied routines for these functions, he read them for ideas, but never old them exact. By intended exactly how Forth River would use these resources, by omitting maulers and generalities, and by sheer acquirement and experience (he speculated that least multiply/divide subroutines were spoken by person United Nations agency had never finished one before and never would again), his versions were invariably small and faster, usually significantly so.

Moreover, he was never slaked with his personal solutions to problems. Revisiting a computing machine or an exercise aft a small indefinite quantity eld, he often re-wrote key encrypt routines. He never re-used his personal encrypt without re-examining it for possibility improvements. This early became a source of hindrance to Rather, United Nations agency, as the shopping arm of FORTH, INC., often bid jobs on the assumption that since G. E. Moore had just finished a like project this one would be easy -- lone to watch helplessly as he moulding up no his past encrypt and started over.

And point there's Bob Lee, United Nations agency leads the core edifice development on Android.

Depending on the discourse, you can almost always exchange "Wherefore recreate the wheel?" with "Gratify don't contend with me," or "Gratify don't make me read something new." Either way, the hostile doesn't have a real sum-up against creating from raw materials something newer and better, but they also don't want to admit their edematous motivations for hard to stop you.

More seeds, more than blooms, I say. Don't build houses on kitchen sinks. Recreate away. Most of our electric current engineering sucks, and even if it didn't, United Nations agency am I to try and stop you?

Indeed. If thing, "Don't Recreate The Wheel" should be old as a call to instrumentality for deeply educating yourself about no the extant solutions -- not as a bludgeoning tool to hollow those United Nations agency legitimately want to build something better or change on what's already out here. In my experience, sadly, it's little more than the former than the former.

So, no, you shouldn't recreate the wheel. Unless you plan on encyclopaedism more than about wheels, that is.