Re: [glob2-devel] Flame thread (insults, code rewrite and other trolls!)

[Cyrille Dunant]

On Friday 05 May 2006 00:39, Bradley Arsenault wrote:
> On 5/3/06, Nuage <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hello, please don't read this e-mail, you'll just loose your time, unless
> > you want to join the flame party.
> >
> > Bradley Arsenault wrote:
> > > You guys suffer from Not Invented Here syndrome:
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Invented_Here
> >
> > 1) Please don't insult us. (IRMBTSDMITWIW syndrome for you, nah. "I
> > Repeat Myself Because They Still Don't Make It The Way I Want")
>
> I'm not insulting you. I'm arguing ideals that this projects
> developers hold that I believe are keeping this project from being
> developed at a faster rate.

No, you are arguing general points, because of philosophical reasons (which 
are incidentaly wrong, but this is besides the point).

PROBLEM : printfs are used, they are in the process of being replaced.
SUB-PROBLEM : what is the best way to replace them.

SOLUTION A : use boost
CON : is not a used dependency. compile times long(er).
PRO : off-the-shelf. works.

SOLUTION B implement our own solution
CON : not tested. Need to be developped
PRO : exactly adapted to our needs, was done in a few hours.

In the end, a solution was found, and everyone is happy. Except you because 
you believe in dependencies as a way of life.

I think you need to stop crack.


> > 2) You're saying the same things many times. Most of the time, your
> > emails are long and redundant, with the same key idea all the time, and
> > then don't really helps to solve the problem, which is the goal of the
> > mailing list. (I am about to stop reading your emails because of this.)
> > Maybe you just need to know that reading english takes us longer than
> > you.
>
> I reinforce opponions on purpose, its how we learn to write persuasive
> writing in english class.

Repetition is not proof. This is not a litterary matter, but a technical one. 
solutions can be evaluated precisely. To convince, you must _show_ the 
tradeofs to be in favour of your side.

plus flaming people is no good to convince anyone. 

> I write long emails because I need to support my points. I don't try
> to just say "Ok, believe what I believe because I say so". I try for a
> more convincing approach, "Believe me for these reasons, and this is
> the information supporting these reasons. This is how things could be
> done better, this is why, I hope you agree with me."
>
> Summarries don't convince anyone.

They do. Especially if you point stands on his own merits.

> > 3) We are trying take the best decision given what we thing, which can be
> > different of what you think. You have to accept it. (This is not a reason
> > to "flood" the mailing list with your long emails.)
>
> So you think that I can not put what i think is wrong into question,
> and that I should just blindly follow the original coders of the
> project on their ideals even if I think their ideals are bad. Thats
> like saying "Lets all become Nazis!" without any real reason or
> background information.

Godwin. Insult. You need to calm down, you now ?

> > Now, about code rewriting:
> >
> > - I sometimes rewrite code because I can write it faster than understand
> > the code of someone else.
>
> The code of someone else is already made, tested, debugged, etc...

he probably writes code faster than you can read it...

> > - I sometimes rewrite code because I can tune it for my own needs.
>
> Like I'll explain below, you tune it less often than not.

games are all about tuning...

> > - I sometimes rewrite code because I don't need all the features.
>
> Thats a blatent reason, more features is generally better unless they
> impede on usability.

blatent reason ? I don't think blatent means quite what you think it does.

> > - I sometimes rewrite code because I'm lazy to read the documentation.
>
> Another blatent reason, you probably are too lazy to write the
> documentation as well and make it difficult for others to understand
> your code.

This is the subject for another flamewar... And decidely, you ned to look up 
what blatent means.

> > - I sometimes rewrite code because the other code is buged.
>
> This is a good reason, but very rare. Most of the time, the library
> has been tested by the author and works fine, and will probably work
> better than anything you write because they have had the time to test
> their library (because they devoted much more time than you have into
> making it).

Warning, I will use CAPS because I feel like it.

WE ARE IMPLEMENTING A TINY BIT OF FUNCTIONNALITY. NOT "A WHOLE LIBRARY OF 
FUNCTIONS". 

> > - I sometimes rewrite code because it's some funny code to write.
>
> Code can be fun to write, but the boring code isn't. Further more, its
> generally only fun to write code that you *haven't* written before. If
> you have ever lost your changes to the source of a program and had to
> remake them, you will understand.

I think you don't realise nuage has probably written _far_ more code than 
you...

> > - As much as I don't re-use the code of someone else, I don't re-use my
> > own code, because I want to make it clearer, change the internal
> > structure, tune it another way, or anything.
>
> Refactoring code is fine. Chaning existing code is fine. But remaking
> it again and again, same old shit, that isn't great or good. Make it
> once, and make it generic enough to be used over and over again.
> Depending on the number of times you use the code, you can save 80-90%
> of the time. You also keep new bugs from being introduced by mistakes.

This is true. Besides the point but true.

> > - I do know why it's not good to rewrite code, any I know why I still do
> > it.

you finished with a long rant I _cannot_ be bothered to comment upon.

-- 
-- Cyrille Dunant
-- EPFL-IMX-LMC 
--

   Gnagloot, n.:
        A person who leaves all his ski passes on his jacket just to
impress people.
                -- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"

pgpJJBCo7iNxI.pgp
Description: PGP signature