> > Please do not repeat your point any further, either of you. This
> > discussion is a waste of bits.
>
> rob: with respect, that is your opinion. and, with respect: i am
> compelled from experience to point out that your opinion tells me that
> you simply do not have any experience in the scale or scope of the
> task that you are facing.
luke, with respect: sentences beginning with 'with respect' usually mean
the exact opposite. Both of you have been making overly-verbose detail
and bike-shed colouring arguments that serve no purpose until somebody
with an actual interest in the problem and knowledge of NetSurf's
relevant internals to weigh in from the project is available. And he's
hundreds of miles away from home at the moment.
Thus: waste of bits.
> > NetSurf will almost certainly never rely
> > on a heavyweight tricky-to-port fat library such as any of the Glib
> > family, or anything else like that. If we need something as you
> > suggest, it will probably be our own, and not just because of NIH
> > syndrome, but because we have special requirements.
>
> 1) where may a list of the special requirements be found, such that i
> may review them and thus focus spending my personal free time and
> personal funds aiding and assisting the users of netsurf more
> productively?
Look at what OSes we work on. That should give you a head start. Also
note that cross-compiling gobject-introspection and similar tools is
either impossible or a massive pain. I can't speak for other libraries
and infrastructures that I have no input on. But regardless, the point
of my mail was to increase the SNR of this list, not to dismiss your
opinion, which had already been stated at length numerous times.
> 2) with respect: why did you not raise this earlier rather than
> letting us spend large amounts of time discuss matters which in your
> opinion are "a waste of time"?
Because we were hoping you'd both be quiet of your own volition rather
than go on and on and on with no end in sight. Looks like at least one
of you has, so it was a partial success.
> 3) to dismiss existing Common Object Models in general as
> "heavyweight" is pure foolishness, rob. and is disrespectful towards
> people who wish to aid and assist the netsurf community.
Read what I said again, as you clearly didn't well enough last time: I
explicitly did not dismiss them in general. I dismissed the fat,
difficult-to-port ones, and even went as far as saying that if it turns
out we need one, we'll probably write one. You even quoted me saying
this, above. This lack of comprehension is probably why this discussion
has gone on for so long.
Incidentally, please try to reply to the mail you're replying to, not
just start a new thread.
B.
No comments:
Post a Comment