From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Sun Aug 7 01:57:16 2005 X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de Message-ID: <20050806175416.709cl81ryu8088cg@coolrunningconcepts.com> Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 17:54:16 -0600 From: evan@coolrunningconcepts.com To: Mark Duckworth Cc: Mint List Subject: Re: [MiNT] Sparemint Site/Updater References: <1123322763.19599.12.camel@evil.atari-source.com> <42F4CD8A.8010107@seznam.cz> <1123355951.19599.25.camel@evil.atari-source.com> <20050806155445.b4jbphuqgqdwsskw@coolrunningconcepts.com> <1123366283.28482.9.camel@mduckworth.phillypark.net> <20050806162140.r5o09okta74k0kwc@coolrunningconcepts.com> <1123368352.28482.31.camel@mduckworth.phillypark.net> In-Reply-To: <1123368352.28482.31.camel@mduckworth.phillypark.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0) X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - esc14.midphase.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - fishpool.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [32001 502] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - coolrunningconcepts.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: evan@coolrunningconcepts.com Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.3 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Level: Quoting Mark Duckworth : > As with ozk said on WCOWORK and XaAES, I can always just stop working on > it. It's not that big of a deal, don't make it out to be one. GDBM > sounds like a hassle still. I wanted something high level, fast, and Uhmm .. I never said you had to use it. I was only curious why that decision had been made, nothing more. Its just an idle question! I'm beginning to think that its not allowed to ask a question anymore because someone will fly off the handle. I wasn't even suggesting that you use it! > wise. And I don't know why everyone hates that attitude. While I am > doing it for the community, I'm mostly doing it out of my own No, its interesting that you didn't care to learn IPC and didn't care to seperate the front end from the back end. The "Interesting Attitude" is that you code based on what you feel like and not based on what the majority feel is a good practice. I'm just wondering how many badly written applications that don't work under MiNT were written with that very same attitude of "I don't care. I'll do it my way" in mind. Now, I'm NOT saying that your program doesn't work. I'm NOT saying its crap. I'm NOT saying that the design choices are wrong. I just said that the attitude is interesting ... NOT that its a wrong attitude, but there really isn't much room to make suggestions as you'll do it your way anyway. Don't read too much into it, OK? > need/desire. You know, I wrote gim and asked for suggestions and very > few people gave me any and even fewer people use it. When it comes down I wasn't around then. My suggestion would have been to look into adding a GEM interface around libgaim since glib is already ported, but thats just me. > to it, I wrote it for myself. While I expect sum to be more widely > used, I don't expect a lot of people in terribly limited ram situations > to be using it... and ram is the only real reason besides "properness" > to separate the gem from the console portion. And it doesn't even need No - the idea is that you can easily change and debug the front end and back-end seperately, or create a new front end or a new backend. Its a code modularity thing, not a RAM thing. > Finally, I think I'd rather be an asshole (or wrong) who puts forth the > effort then the nice guy who will let everyone else push him around for > what amounts to no good reason. At least my way things will get done > because I won't be screwing around with stuff I don't know well - and > thus will be very slow to implement. Nobody is pushing you around. Gemdos handle redirection is very simple. I'm just surprised its not more common and that everyone doesn't know it. Where do you get all this implied hostility? > Besides only you and Standa spoke up so the idea isn't universally > hated ;) And I know I could convince Standa of the virtues of my way Never said hated! You said you didn't know IPC, I gave you one way its often done so you could better modularize your code. You ignored the suggestion with a "I'll do it my way no matter what" statement, which I found interesting, but otherwise ... its your choice. You've already said the GEM interface can be removed completely, so I don't have any problem with that at all! > makes good simplistic design sense. The only separated ones are apt > which doesn't even have a gui interface AFAIK and yum which has a VERY > poor gui interface. How well these other interfaces work is totally off-topic. I can site plenty of other bad programming designs. It doesn't mean something similar designed by another person is going to be better or worse. Got a valium? Take some! Everyone is so touchy here!