On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 12:59 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > My position is that the encapsulated constructor mechanism is a > security threat, because it attacks user freedom. My arguments for > this position have been carefully laid out in "Ownership and > Contracts", and have not been challenged yet. Jonathan disagrees, but > his disagreement at this point is just dismissal of the concerns and > goals.
Excuse me, but this is untrue. I do not share your goals. I disagree with them quite strongly. That is not the same thing as "dismissing" them. To "dismiss" them would imply disrespect or unwillingness to understand. I understand quite well what you are trying to achieve. I do not agree. However, I respect what you are attempting. This is true in the same sense that I respect high voltage, guns, and chain saws: all of them are dangerous, and must be treated with care. If you succeed, I think there is a chance that you will destroy (or at least severely damage) the incentive structures that have driven creative process since the beginning of recorded history. It is possible that what you advocate will be better, but it is by no means certain. You are engaged in an irreversible experiment with no control population and no ability to reverse course if you are wrong. This is not your fault; it is an inevitable consequence of attempting social change within a closed social system. Whether your ideology is correct or not, *any* experiment of this form is intrinsically dangerous, and must be watched carefully. Certainly it must not be dismissed. Jonathan _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
