On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 05:47:01PM +0000, Lusercop wrote: > I've read bits of it, when I wanted to know in advance that it was > going to do what I needed it to do, and the documentation was not up > to scratch. Trust me on this, or look at it yourself, but we've already > had this discussion here recently. The code isn't either. It's write-only > code. CClient, is, IMO, pretty similar. Virtually every line has at least > 3 side-effects, and there is no sensible modularisation.
A smart little man (who didn't code at the time) once said to me "coding is an art form, co-operative coding is just fucked". Whether you agree or not with DJBs style of coding is irrelevant, the mere fact that qmail has been so successful is testament in itself to DJBs programming ability. > 'lose', or perhaps 'luse'. I have read this stuff, and I'm prepared to hold > my opinion on it. I notice that no one replied to my challenge to explain > the constants in datetime.c. Here's a quarter, go call someone that cares. > Surprisingly enough, that's not what I'm going "yuck" about. > <./lusercop -vvvvvv> Irrelevant spiel. > UNIX has had dynamic linking for well over 20 years, anyone who doesn't > use it because he's a "traditionalist" is kidding himself. There are > many reasons to prefer it over static linking. Would you please stop emphasizing "traditionalist"? More spiel, once again you are completely missing the point - I said IIRC (IMVHFO, AFAIK, FOAD) c-client was designed for static compilation, eg. as PHP uses it. I don't give a shiny penny about your UNIX linking knowledge. > You quoted his message, it certainly looked like you were. No. You assumed I was. > > If it isn't Linux, then take a look around, there are hundreds of > > sources of pre-compiled binaries (although maybe only tens of > > trustable sources). > Erm, we were talking about building from source, why do you introduce this > irrelevant argument. Users should not have to build, you idiot. I don't proof-read pointless e-mails. > > Well done for stating the complete obvious. Would you have laughed like > > a child had I said "awk is a pretty portable text extraction tool"? "ha > > No. > > <./lusercop --aphorism -vvv> > > I don't think your point is valid. You're back in your ideal world again. Standards are just that, not the gospel that everyone must comply to. > > If you are a user and you cannot build a package, there's a good chance > > you shouldn't be trying to in the first place. > OK, I agree with you on this. But if many experienced sysadmins find > c-client an annoyance, then perhaps there's something in that, no? They should be e-mailling their nearest developer friend asking for a package, or filing a bug report. > It's my job, as you are no doubt aware, given that you've looked up who > < !! -vvvvvvvv > I know quite a few penetration testers, and all of them are able to have a reasonable conversation without mentioning how insecure my MUA/X server/Distro/back garden is. > < !! > > I haven't seen a SunOS install in, what, 6-7 years. Perhaps you mean > Solaris. No, I mean SunOS. Stop assuming you are superior to everyone else. In the real world (ie. not your head) computers exist that may not be bang up to date, your view seems to be the Microsoft one, ie. if it's older than two years it's deprecated. > < !! > > I'll talk to who I like. If you don't like what I have to say then killfile > me. I don't mind if you do or don't listen. I do object to being told what > and what Try typing with a little less anger, it results in less typos. > And some do. I didn't realize your mum was subscribed to the list. > There are valid points to be debated here, but if you're just going to > say "I'm right, don't talk to me anymore", then I think that you lose > all credibility in such a debate. Maybe I didn't pad my e-mail out with "IMHO" enough, but then I shouldn't need to. You invite a nasty reply when you try to act like an expert in every field. The fact is, you are 6 years older than me, still act like a child, and have some sort of massive superiority complex. > If the list admin doesn't like what I write, then it is up to him to say > "you shouldn't have said that" or "don't post that". It is not up to you > to say "the lurkers support me in email", and therefore you shouldn't post > anymore. I don't want you to go away, I just wish you didn't get on like such a twat. As it happens, I haven't actually written a line of perl in my life. I have been listening to the perl lists for about 6 months now, after attending a talk on perl 6, with which I was exponentially more impressed than perl 5. I'm very easily tempted into a list war, and apologize to those who have had to put up with these irrelevant postings. As for Matthew, if you haven't worked it out by now, I have absolutely no respect for you and don't want to read another e-mail by you. The only reason I'm replying tonight is because learning to troll is more interesting than moving boxes into the attic. Once again, apologies all. ./dw --lurk David.
