On 04/18/2008 09:30 PM, Ron Savage wrote:
> > o Slow was an extremely polite way of saying it was unusable. I avoided > being blunt to avoid offending contributors such as yourself. Even > unusable is polite... Bluntness is preferable to silence. If the issue is a bug in the code, then I (and I assume, all developers who maintain code) would like to know. If it is a bug in the docs, same deal. If it is user error, then I (we) would at least like the chance to point that out so that anyone who finds comments about my (our) modules via google can at least see that the code is not the issue in this case. Open source software survives on good will and good reputation. > o How long would it take, how much effort would it require, and would I > be satisfied with the result? > hey, I'm lazy too. That's why I write software, to avoid doing things manually. :) But if you're going to claim that using software I've authored results in a slow, unusable product, I'd at least like to see a reproduce-able example. If the code is broken, I'd like to fix it. But damaging the reputation of the code (and by extension, my efforts) isn't kind without a failing test case to prove your point. For the record, I have (and I know of others who have) RDGC-based apps in production and find the results quite usable. -- Peter Karman . [EMAIL PROTECTED] . http://peknet.com/ ##### CGI::Application community mailing list ################ ## ## ## To unsubscribe, or change your message delivery options, ## ## visit: http://www.erlbaum.net/mailman/listinfo/cgiapp ## ## ## ## Web archive: http://www.erlbaum.net/pipermail/cgiapp/ ## ## Wiki: http://cgiapp.erlbaum.net/ ## ## ## ################################################################
