I'm sorry if that came off as though it was targeted at you - I meant to a general statement about the philosophy of having zero duplication. Of course, you're right, duplication has a cost too, and it doesn't work to just throw everything together either, so like everything else in life it's about compromise.
For what it's worth, I think you asked a good question, made a valid point, and an interesting discussion came out of it. Regardless of one's approach, it's always right to question whether you're really doing the right thing - so I didn't take your question as being demanding at all, far from it. Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion, and again, apologies if you've felt that there's any hostility involved. On 9 March 2014 11:23, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org> wrote: > > > On Sunday, 9 March 2014 07:48:25 UTC-3, Mike Innes wrote: >> >> Stefan: "you want all the best and most powerful tools available" Yes, >> yes, yes - this a thousand times. >> >> The problem with demanding that "every problem has a single solution" is >> that you end up with "every solution fits a single problem" as well. You >> can't possibly foresee all of the solutions and determine which is best, >> and you can't foresee all of the problems a tool can solve either. So >> instead of trying to create a one-size-fits all solution to each class of >> problem, let's make powerful tools that work seamlessly together and trust >> our users to do what they do best - problem solving. >> >> >> > Go read the Julia issues. They're full of tradeoffs between simplicity > and functionality. > > Life, and language and library design, aren't as simple as you are making > out. There are costs to duplication and alternatives. > > And painting my posts as "demanding" a single solution is plain wrong. I > asked a question. I didn't demand anything. > > Andrew > >
