Re: [glob2-devel] Refactoring

[Kai Antweiler]

> I've said this, but our current cleaning of unit allocation and unit state 
> machine turns indeed in a rewrite. Problem is that it takes long time.

I know.  But if it will be clearer after that - it's worth it.


> The question about dependency is that one: if rewriting a feature takes 10 
> minutes, as it does for the printf stuff, 

It takes 10 minutes to read the mails about it.
Implementing, debugging, documenting takes a lot longer.
But I didn't want to be specific to the printf.


> and adding a dep will take one hour to each porter, then rewriting
> is easier.

I don't think that it will take that long.  More like the 10 minutes.


> If we want to add 20 of those features, than dependency is
> better. Furthermore, the more dependency the less people compile
> glob2 easily, especially on OS X (where we do not have any package
> right now) and win32.

True.  But I guess we have more programmers than glob2 users
on OS X and win32 :-(


> Now for the precise issue of printf, at the end, I do not care either to use 
> boost or to use a small rewrite. I just suggested how it could be rewritten 
> to address some complaints about dependencies.

I haven't criticized that.  It's a good thing to help with an implementation.


> Perhaps some of you will complain about the lack of strong leadership (as my 
> student do, it's frightening how much they ask to be coerced into working, 
> very sad), but I think that everyone should find its own path in the art of 
> computer programming (and, as speaking about it, this stupid assembler of 
> 60ies Knuth is using in his books is very unfriendly).

The books would indeed be much better without it.

I don't think strong leadership is needed.  Instead I feel a lack
of communication.
Take me for example:  I have worked for a month on the gradient calculation,
but I haven't put it as a task in the bug tracker.  Shame on me.

-- 
Kai Antweiler