Ian Clarke wrote:
> So if I had a penny for every time I see someone say "If only Freenet
> was implemented in C++, then I would love to help", I would be, er,
> looking for some way to offload a lot of change.
>
> Adam has been working on a C++ implementation for some time now, and has
> received very little interest from people interested in helping him.
I can suggest a few possible reasons for this.
I'm not sure of the situation now, but Whiterose as of a few months back
was complex and poorly documented - both at the micro and macro levels.
Whiterose? Redrose? Where do I start? Interfaces weren't documented
at all, and the code itself was complex. The documentation I did see
explained _what_ was happening, but not _why_.
It's not just Whiterose. A new developer needs to learn at least the
basics of the Freenet protocol before they can tackle Whiterose or
Fred. The major documents are incorrect or out of date. Anyone asking
questions about the current protocol is referred to the Fred source
code, or expected to trawl through the mailing list archives for
important decisions buried in flame wars.
The mainstream Freenet developers have the advantage of an early start.
Even Freenet 0.2 was relatively simple, as Liberator demonstrates. 0.3
is more complex - key exchange, crypto, multiple keytypes - yet has less
documentation.
Catch-22: a new developer has to understand Freenet before they can
follow Whiterose or Fred, but they have to read Whiterose or Fred to
follow Freenet.
Fred is the only real starting point. Would you have the patience to
read Fred as an introduction, then Whiterose for seconds? There's
enough of a barrier to Fred.
Coders don't want to waste time reading code, they'd rather write.
--
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] F289 2BDB 1DA0 F4C4 DC87 EC36 B2E3 4E75 C853 FD93
http://zem.squidly.org "..I'm invisible, I'm invisible, I'm invisible.."
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
