Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>:
> Make the whole thing ___***IDENTICAL***___ to CML1.
> Do a formal translation of CML1 into CML2.
>
> Show us that you are clever enough to do so, even if it's not particularly
> interesting and challenging to you.
>
> Show us that you can listen to this simple feedback.
>
> Acknoledge that the feedback went through.
>
> Don't tell us that's not doable. Do it and show us that you can do a
> perfect translation of CML1 into CML2 with all CML1 structural flaws.
>
> Submit that, and only that.
>
> Do you copy? Please acknoledge that you listened to this very feedback.
I listened.
Would you ask someone designing a new VM to make it crash and hang exactly
the same way the old one did?
Do you demand that a rewrite of a disk driver have the same data-corruption
bugs as the original before it can go into the tree, and tell the developer
to add fixes later?
Pragmatically, the point of rewriting a system is to *fix bugs*.
Let's suppose we ignored this point for a moment. Let's also suppose
that what you were demanding were not rendered horribly painful and
perhaps impossible by the difference between CML1's imperative style
and CML2's declarative one.
How the hell do you possibly think I could possibly stay motivated under
that constraint? Nobody is paying me to do this. I'm a volunteer; I
need to produce good art, not waste time slavishly recreating old errors
just because a few people are unreasonably fearful of change.
-- <a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:11 EST