Hello Andrei,
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
Ok, I see.
-JJR
