"John Keiser" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Frankly, there are only going to be a few major contributors whose toolkits
are going to be *extremely* widely used, and GNU is probably one of them.
Making it easy to type and use and think about (less mental friction) is a
good thing.
Although not
It's not too late to change to "org.gnu" if one has the will.
After all, Sun changed from "com.sun.java.swing" to "javax.swing".
The change caused some disruption, but was a welcome one.
Using "org.gnu" would also impress Java developers outside the
Free Software fold. Java developers like the
So, who ever breaks the rules first gets the advantage?
Your self-centered attitude pretty much sums up what is most objectionable
about **any** organization that decides to ignore the common good and do
whatever they want because they think for some reason that they are above it
all. If that
OK, here it is in writing: I am absolutely serious, "org.gnu" takes more
energy than "gnu". But it's not about typing energy, it's about thinking
energy, the minimization of which is (IMO) one of the principal factors in
designing maintainable and reusable code, *especially* libraries. Having
Hey, I've got a great solution. We start a "gnu" TLD to go along with "com",
"org", etc. Problem solved, everyone's happy, we all find more constructive
things to debate and/or get on with writing code.
Wes
Wow. This is the most discussion we've had on any topic in a long time
around here. This is the most ridiculous thing to have a flame war about
ever. So I'll pledge to stop right here. Everyone else can send
one more message if they want to.
The vast bulk of what we are writing is in the
OK, my parting thought:
It does seem that a lot of people and companies are using this naming
convention, which could make it a Good Thing, regardless of how screwed up
it is. But while we don't need to decide now, I think we *do* need to
decide before release.
--John
-Original
Greetings,
Fascinating.
I wonder how loud the hue and cry would be if Microsoft decided to
arbitrarily use a top-level package name 'microsoft.*' because of
visibility 'advertising' purposes, and they think it's an arbitrary
standard, and besides EVERYBODY knows who Microsoft is
Morgan Schweers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to talk the talk of following standards, you'd best walk
the walk as well. This is a standard, and violating it just because you
think it's arbitrary is...distinctly offensive at best.
We're all for standards around here... just not
John Keiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But while we don't need to decide now, I think we *do* need to
decide before release.
Release? What's that? :)
--
Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 11:13:37PM -0700, John Keiser wrote:
OK, here it is in writing: I am absolutely serious, "org.gnu" takes more
energy than "gnu". But it's not about typing energy, it's about thinking
energy, the minimization of which is (IMO) one of the principal factors in
designing
"It is not the four extra characters that presents the problem to me, but
it is the bizarre naming convention. In my mind I do not associate
libraries with the _domain names_ that created them, why *would* I? And
then there's this weirdness with reversing the domain name (gnu.org -
org.gnu).
I'm all for 'cutting the thread', but let me leave you with the observation
that a "We can do whatever we please because we are who we are" attitude
does not stink any less coming from "the GNU movement" than it does coming
from Microsoft.
That's my final comment (unless someone **begs** me to
I wonder how loud the hue and cry would be if
Microsoft decided to arbitrarily use a top-level
package name 'microsoft.*'
I would have no problem with it, but...
but I *DO* know that even they use com.ms
(which is wrong, but at least closer)
I have a real problem with this, because
14 matches
Mail list logo
