On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:48:39PM +0100, Newsbyte wrote: > "Not a very accurate translation. We are currently a work in progress, > we won't always be." > > It's rather very accurate in any pragmatic sense. Let me get this straight: > 'currently' means the last 4 years, then. So this would imply things will > cease to be a 'work in progress' once version 1.0 will be there? Why? Isn't > it a work then, anymore? Isn't any progress going to be made, then? > > But regardless, even if that would be your viewpoint, this would mean that > as long as it's beta, it's a work in progress, and the specs will remain > obsolete. If the past is any indication, this will mean yet another 3-4 > years - and *then* specs are going to be made? pfff...
Please could you explain exactly why we need up to date ***FNP*** specifications? It's more than enough work to maintain a version of freenet in Java, let alone assembler language! Or could you perhaps explain exactly what is wrong with the current FCP specs? > > O, but wait, I know: *you* will arbitrarily decide when it's a work in > progress, and when it's not, right? Regardless of any objective criteria or > the fact it's still in beta or not, or even if it's still a work in progress > or not. That way, as usual, you are always right, even if you are wrong, and > you can ignore anyone asking for the specs. > > > "Another inaccurate explanation. The current FCP specs have been more > than adequate to permit the implementation of Frost, Fuqid, and > numerous other third-party apps. Since you are clearly such an > expert, perhaps you can explain what is wrong with the FCP > specifications?" > > Aha, here we go again; the 'you are not a coder so shut-up' defence. You > haven't learned a thing, have you? Everytime you or the project get > criticised, it's back to the basic: what code did you deliver, are you the > 'expert', etc. Basically focussing on your perceived superiority as a coder > to happily ignore anyone else. Well, guess what; it's poor management. > > If I was telling toad or you (not that your contributions in code are that > overwhelming, btw) how to code, you might have a point, but as I've told you > numerous times, this "why should I have to listen if you're not a > coder"-attitude doesn't cut it in cases of project-management and making the > program user-friendly on an application-level. Thus, in this case, I *don't* > have to be a coder to notice the numerous complaints there have been > regarding the lack of detailed specs. It's a recurring theme, on slashdot, > on the mailists, on freesites, and even some of the Higher Gods have > acknowlegded the specs were poor and not up to date in the past. Then get into the specifics! What is wrong with the FCP specs? For the third time (or is that the 33rd time)? > > But hey, feel free to ignore all those, bacause that's always your > convenient way out, isn't it? It's never the question; maybe they have a > point, and I should concentrate on the specs a bit, it's rather: well, > slashdotters are an irratic bunch of whiners and nothing more then trolls, > people on the maillists aren't coders so why bother paying any attention > (it's not like they are 'experts' after all, are they?), Freenetters are > anonymous whiners too, and thus irrelevant, and the few expetions that are > active coders and find the specs lacking are just plain wrong. So, in > essence, you are, again, right - because you consider it to be so, whatever > others may say. And then you try to counter with saying that tools have been > made, after all, so there is no need to do anything. > > Right. Reminds me of the scene of Lisa Simpson who sold a stone to her dad > that magically repulsed any tigers, "and you don't see any tigers around, do > you"? A specious reasoning, indeed. It says more about the ability of those > coders to work with next to nothing, and still manage to make useful tools, > than anything else. Maybe you should ask *them* if they don't think that > more detailed specs would be welcome? Or that they rather would have it soon > (provided it's any good) then in 3 years, when it will cease to be a 'work > in progress'. You call the current FCP specs "next to nothing"? WHY? Could we possibly have some detail? > > But in fact, many of those have already talked about that in their > freesites, if you would take the trouble of reading those. (But then again, > you can always dismiss them too, no?) > > > "Thanks for lecturing us on what is right, because you are clearly such > an expert on software development that you have never, to my > knowledge, written a line of code for this project in your life. We > don't do specs on something before it is specified. To do otherwise > would be moronic. FCP for pre-0.7 was specified, and specified > adequately enough for numerous third-party applications to implement. > If you disagree, please bless us with your expert knowledge of exactly > what is wrong with the current FCP specs." > > > And there we continue.... Note, that you never give any counterargument (the > same as your response on slashdot, on my criticism). *ALL* you say basically > boils down to just "Newsbyte is a well know troll". Gosh, that makes it so > easy, doesn't it? Throw in a bit of sarcasm here and there, and you think > you've made your case. Answer the question. What is wrong with the current FCP specs? -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20051205/3e6d5f03/attachment.pgp>
