John Reimer wrote:
Hello Andrei,
IUnknown wrote:
This is why I request you to consult other independent people and see
what their take on it is. From a library developer's perspective you
would invariably pit the decision against the difficulty in doing it.
Hence my suggestion to find out what users would really need and then
try to implement it.
This I completely disagree with. 360 degrees :o). Good stuff comes
from good vision, not from doing what people think they want (see PHP,
American cars, and taking dating advice from female friends). I won't
continue this because it will go the way philosophical debates usually
go => a long exchange of long messages leading to nowhere in
particular.
Andrei
Oversimplification. Good stuff does not always come from good vision if
it is poorly managed.
Agreed. I'll also note I didn't claim "always".
IUnknown had a fair point that you had the option of taking or leaving.
The suggestion was to look for advice for a problem to which you
admitted having no solution.
Obviously, you needn't take the advice. But reinterpreting his
statement to a form that is absurd is not fair. You could have just as
easily interpreted him as saying, "look over some historical examples
and see if there are similar solutions to this problem from another's
perspective".
Oh, I didn't mean to demean what he said in any way. But taking his
advice at this point in time is incompatible with my view, for the lack
of a better word. Most of the issue is that for the most part said
"view" is not palpable: it's the ranges I haven't implemented yet, the
I/O I haven't designed yet, the containers I haven't implemented yet,
and the threading library we haven't designed yet. At the same time,
Tango as defined today itself does not take advantage of D2. So I'd find
it odd to ask people at this point whether they'd choose between a
library that essentially doesn't exist yet, and one that might improve
by going through one more iteration. It's just too early for D2.
Andrei
