Re: Re: about your concept

On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 01:00:53PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 12:59:06PM +0200, JP Dinger wrote:
> > > presumably because they can't
> > > understand how anybody would use it otherwise.
> > 
> > If people insist on finding out the hard way their idea doesn't fly,
> > let them.
> 
> Do you see anybody stopping them? No?
>
> Anybody can write code, if they want to try out their idea. It just
> probably won't be merged, and is likely to be ignored.

Merging means stamping it fit for general tryout, something you don't
usually do until after some testing at least. Ignoring means not even
trying out new code, defeating the purpose of an experimental platform.
Ignoring also means discouraging people from contributing code for their
ideas, which is even more damaging.


> It is
> significant that none of these people have done so.

If you insist on measuring merit by lines of code alone, then yes.
OTOH if you first ignore all contributed code then complain nobody
contributes code anymore, is nobody to blame for not doing so?


> > > X has the right approach, as always. The current division between core
> > > and window manager or application functionality is in exactly the
> > > right place. The implementation can just be done better.
> > 
> > >From my reading of /The Thesis[tm]/, or even from various opinions on
> > this list, I didn't get the idea that Y was to be a copy remake of what
> > X did right 20 years ago. Sure we should use what was done right, but I
> > don't think that's all we can do. Far from it, even.
> 
> Nobody, including Mark, who is significantly involved in Y has given
> *any* particularly deep opinions on the design and direction of the
> project on this list.

So you're saying that Y-devel is not a list for what you consider the
clueful but more of what you think of as a courtesy to people you don't
really deem worthy to talk with. Something like a pacifier for the
wannabees to be ignored.

Glad to clear that up then. I'd encourage you to put your money where
your mouth is and indeed do just that. But as some others on the list
have assured me, you should be a quite clueful and capable coder. I'm
sure there's many a person eager to learn and improve with help from
a master. Calling them insane or other names doesn't really help them
getting clued in.


> Mark's project report (which is *not* a thesis; anybody who calls it
> that has no clue what they are talking about) is a fairly unique sort
> of document and does not encapsulate the project in any
> fashion. Primarily because it's not a thesis.

Someone called it that and it stuck. I do not particularly care what it
is called. If nothing else it was a nice excuse to try out the colour
laser. It turned out a good read and I happened to agree with a lot of
ideas. Turns out a lot of people thought them good ideas. Hence the
list. But I see that details are more important to you, so I'll leave it
up to you to judge people by them. You seem to be good at it.


> > > Almost every one of these daft ideas that people keep shooting off
> > > about, belongs externally. So they tend to get ignored, modulo an
> > > explanation of why they're bad ideas.
> > 
> > Well if it was explanation it'd be welcomed as such. Sentiment I've
> > seen a lot of, but explanation or even just elaborated opinion lacked.
> > 
> > Points to work on.
> 
> Yes, you could certainly use work on comprehending this. Y is doing
> just fine.

If you say so. I'm glad you at least wrote more than ``read the source''
when asked for your opinion. That does seem to be an improvement to me.


-- 
  j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .