Monday, January 10, 2000, 5:47:19 PM, Claudius wrote:
> Even this one point is worth it all! I do not quite get you, Steve, when you
> say [newsreader] "All I see this is leading heavily into code bloat," - some
> things might be *a little bit* unstable or larger, but RITLABS give me a
> pretty good feeling about that:
(1) LG>> Yes. Also, large address books will not require much memory.
(2) LG>> I expect it as extra 20-30K of code :-) [newsreader]
(3) LG>> Well, I hope that it will be smaller than v1.xx executable, but I
> (no predictions, but at least a gooooood estimation!)
> Tell me, why do you expect TheBat! to be so unstable and bloated, then?
Is the executable they were talking about the base executable sans all the
"optional" items to make it comparable to Bat v1.x? You are aware that by
virtualizing everything in the manner they have described they are adding in
several layers of complexity? Each layer has its own potential for bugs.
Given the bugs in v1.x (not a harp on RTILABS, just a statement of fact) and
my own experience with programming I'm not going to ignore that strong
possibility.
My prediction came from the fact that they are adding a lot of new things
not directly related to the main task at hand, *reading email*. They are
doing this without that core application's full potential even being
completely realized. For the record I do not consider /ANY/ implementation of
an email client a full realization of the potential that one can pack into an
email client in either functionality at the core level or robustness. This is
not based on wishful thinking but rather based with my years of professional
experience in the internet industry and years of hobbiest experience in the
BBS community of the 80s.
> George, "One of my part-time jobs was the news administrating, here in
> university of Crete" -- don't get me wrong, but: that sure does not make you
> a __END-CUSTOMER-NEEDS__-news pro!!
But it does give him an insight into how the two systems differ.
> Steve wrote "I'd rather RITLABS would do one thing and do it well than do a
> dozen things poorly." -- I'd rather RITLABS would do a dozen things well
> ;-))
I'd rather you learned how to quote properly first. This is a killer for
me to read in any intelligible fashion.
As for RITLABS doing a dozen things well, let me explain why that cannot
happen. The programmers of RITLABS only have so much time on their hands. It
is finite. They do not live in a warp bubble where one day for them equals a
month for us. Time they spend coding other projects means they aren't coding
*this* one. It is like that old joke, "You can have fast service, you can
have quality service and you can have cheap service. Pick two." It means you
can have fast quality service but it'll cost you or you can have fast cheap
service but it won't be quality or you can have quality cheap service but it
won't be fast. You can have quality programming, a variety of programming, or
fast programming... Pick 2.
> ideology: news and mails are "somewhat the same".
They are not.
> But more and more (newbie) people don't want to "power-news-read/write" -
> they see mails and news as (the same..?) ways to exchange ideas. That's the
> ideology.
And that is my problem. *IF* that is the case then it is another company
that is drooling over the numbers of the "newbie" market and forgetting that
the newbie market is locked up by free products *AND* that their money was
made by the power user. I am damn tired of the power user being shafted over
and over and *OVER* again by people who are going after the newbie market.
> What I think when I read George's comment "Newsreading is a VERY
> VERY different thing than mailreading. Other headers, other protocols, other
> specifications, other rfcs etc etc." you almost proved RITs statement: the
> ideology of READING seems to be the same!
He never said the reading was the same, he was talking just the technical
level.
> I don't get it...yes, the technics is not unimportant, but hey ---
> This is A+ software engineering! We're trying to model communication
> here!!
A+? No. Good, yes. Great, no.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
View the TBUDL archive at http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com
To send a message to the list moderation team double click here:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe from TBUDL, double click here and send the message:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------
