James Britt wrote:


> I'm pretty sure most people participating in this thread know what
> refactoring is, and have read, or at least are aware of, Fowler's book,
> though they may not all have quite the same take on it, nor have the
> same view on the topic.

Fowler's book was just an example. That's all. 

 
> I'd also venture to guess that most people view this thread as a
> discussion, not a debate.  At least, that's my preference.  Debates have
> a habit of spinning off into "I'm right, you're wrong" absolutism that
> gets in the way of listening.

To me, debate and discussion mean the same thing. If you think I'm arguing,
I apologize. I'm just giving my views about this particular topic; that's
all. 

I also wasn't trying to sound like a diehard advocate of *refactoring*. Like
all techniques, it has its good and bad points. 

The only thing I am advocating is that refactoring and programming languages
are, for the most part, two mutually exclusive topics. I felt this
necessary because someone here stated that without bad programming
languages, refactoring is not needed. 

KPB