On 08/08/14 20:40, Jim Starkey wrote: >> On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:05 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes >> <adrian...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08/08/2014 08:52, Jim Starkey wrote: >>> >>> So, if I understand your original goals, again as an outsider, I would have >>> to say that your current interface proposal does not meet them. Each step >>> in the progression may have seen logical, but the end result is not. >> I'm resisting to reply to you and Dimitry S., but I actually think what >> you're saying is abstract bullshit. >> >> You actually seem to not even looked at the current code, interfaces or >> proposed changes. You're telling nothing new nor useful here. > > Adriano, calling something "abstract bullshit" is not a particularly > compelling technical argument. If you want to add something constructive to > the discussion, why don't you tackle my points one by one? > > The code is irrelevant; the interface has to live forever. You are promoting > an interface that is not efficient, incompatible with all existing > applications, is alien to standard industry usage, doesn't advance the state > of the art, don't follow accepted industry standards, and will not attract > new developers to Firebird. It is, from all appearances, something the > crawled out of the primordial ooze of a really bad idea that the client API > should be the same as the plugin API. > > Technical issues can, in fact, be discussed with more depth than "+1". In > fact, everything in engineering is a tradeoff, and tradeoffs can be > reasonably balanced and discussed. But dismissing something that you don't > agree with as "abstract bullshit" is never warranted.
Yes, Adriano, your style is OK for a pub, but not for a tech list. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
