> 1. You wrote: "Cython was founded with the primary goal of remaining
> compatible with Pyrex."

Primary may be a misnomer, but it is listed in your faq.  If you are
changing your mind on this, it may be something to edit.  IMHO, it
would be a good move at this juncture.


> This is total FUD.   The Cython developers (1) in no way have that
> goal, and (2) are certainly not "at Greg's mercy".

FUD implies that I'm intentionally trying to spread Fear, Uncertainty,
and Doubt.

And the latter is true if you wish to remain Pyrex compatible.  It's
true whenever you provide compatibility with something, whenever Greg
decides to change the language you'll need to support his changes.


> 3. "build the main mill [cython/pyrex fork] package
> from scratch

your added [] is inconsistent with that sentence - mill cannot be a
fork if it is being written from scratch.

> One person who is new to Cython made a claim on cython-devel
> about the barrier to entry.  That is much different  than "the
> people working on Cython
> agreeing the barrier to entry for new developers is obscenely high".

You assume your mailing list is the only place I've gotten that
impression from.  We've had several discussions on IRC about the state
of the codebase.  You also missed part of that statement, "agree" is
not meaning "Cython devs all agree" but "[some] Cython devs  agree
[with the assessment we have made]"

You're digging into our mailing list archives, and that's fine, but
you have to remember when reading these that the people reading them
are having discussions both on and off the mailing list.  You can feel
free to post a refute in reply to our mailing list, since I believe
I'm the only one on this one, but it really matters not to either
Cython or us.

It's not like people reading my blog posting on some rss feed
syndicate is going to read our list archives.


> There certainly is a barrier to entry -- Cython is a compiler of
> a highly nontrivial language after all.  But I think describing
> it as obscenely high due to the particular implementation is FUD.
> And it is exactly the kind of FUD that will hurt the Cython project
> right now.

You seem to like the word FUD, however, you are misusing it.

FUD is something that sleezy marketing types conjure up intentionally
to mislead the public into not buying a product.  If you look at the
blog posting itself from a neutral POV you'll see I included nothing
which would lead someone to choose our solution (which is currently
vaporware, as we're just starting it, and we have no intention at
marketing to the larger community) over Cython or otherwise twist
perceptions.

When I post to my blog, knowing how many places it's syndicated, I'm
usually careful in the words I use.  The mailing list is an internal
development list with maybe 25 people on it, we're a lot more casual
there and venting is common.  If there is false information in the
blog posting, something specific, let me know and I'll fix it.  Any
fix made will get to everywhere it's posted.
_______________________________________________
Cython-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/cython-dev

Reply via email to