On Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:51:47 AM UTC-7, Mark Hahn wrote: > > tl;dr > > Skimming over this thread I don't see anyone jumping on listas'/austin's > bandwagon. I, for one, certainly agree with Isaac's arguments. I also > think he has been very nice in putting in so much effort in replying to > such a stupid concern. > > In short, +1 for Isaac's arguments. >
I very much appreciate Isaac's time and effort. And idk, what else can I say? If being in the minority automatically made one wrong, I wouldn't be making the effort to reason like I am. Taking the time to reason your design isn't the first thing people tend to do, it's non-obvious. Though I wouldn't say I'm the only one here, I'm jumping to the defense of at least two others here in favor of some fraction of their inquiry. > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Austin William Wright < > diamon...@users.sourceforge.net <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:04:52 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Austin William Wright >>> <diamon...@users.**sourceforge.net> wrote: >>> > ... >>> >>> Look, here's the bottom: The module system is locked. We're not >>> interested in changing it. The source is open, so you can go nuts on >>> it if you'd like. Your feelings about node's module system are rare, >>> and not shared by the development team, or a significant fraction of >>> users. >>> >>> We don't destabilize node-core for vocal minorities. >>> >> >> Absolutely not: If something is wrong, you change it and increment the >> major version number. That's not "destabilizing" in any sense of the word, >> that's improving functionality, and telling people that you broke >> reverse compatibility in doing so. >> >> There's nothing "vocal minorities" about cross-platform coding. Most >> people won't use 'crypto'. Does that make them a vocal minority? Most >> people won't use 'domain'. Does that make them a vocal minority? Most >> people won't be affected by any of the bugs being filed from now on, but we >> still regard those as important. But ill-defined require() is just as much >> a bug as any of those. >> >> The story of the growth of Node.js is getting support and functionality >> out for as many people as possible. You don't regard if it's going to be a >> "majority" or not, you regard if it's *profitable at the margin*. >> >> >>> > Right now I'm stuck at convincing people that pragmatism isn't good. >>> >>> That's confusing. Why are you here if you don't think pragmatism is a >>> good thing? Node is all about pragmatism. >>> >> >> When you say "pragmatism" I hear "I don't understand the the system works >> together well enough to understand the consequences of my actions." That >> there are no facts, no fixed laws of logic, no certainty, no objectivity. >> It is the antithesis of semantics and objectivity. And it is not an >> appropriate design strategy for any software system. >> >> -- >> Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ >> Posting guidelines: >> https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "nodejs" group. >> To post to this group, send email to nod...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> nodejs+un...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en >> > > -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
