On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Michael Haberler <[email protected]> wrote:
> folks, I guess you are hunting ghosts. > > I am not talking about "a massive influx of changes to the existing > LinuxCNC code base, and my god, X will break". > I wasn't either, maybe I shouldn't have started out about the part of hating change for no reason. It's been a while since I've been through the code base, but I think there are plenty of reasons to redo some code. My main point was that the fact that you can have whatever user interface you want is a good thing and I expect the decision will be made to keep an architecture that would allow users to choose their interface. I think that the positive contribution of HAL would make it obvious that we would want to maintain the loose coupling of the components of EMC. I suspect that since so many people are comfortable with some of the older interfaces will mean that you can expect someone to be motivated to re-write some of them. Of course, we are used to having things break. When Hal was introduced, any code I had contributed got broken, but on the whole that was a good thing. Lots of other drivers got broken too. It doesn't seem to have hurt anything, although I'm sure there are some people that aren't too happy about the change. Eric ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
