On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: > > >> Cray and others have admitted to doing this for as long as I've used > >> PETSc. It's possible to discourage it without setting land mines. > > > > > > I guess my attitude is that most people using PETSc attempt to work > > within the structures setup to use it. Cray people seem not to give a > > fuck and just change stuff willy nilly until it works for them. Thats > > fine. We can't stop them, but I am not motivated to enable them > > either. > > I just don't see the value of RDict. It's read interface right now is > grotesque (requires a lot of code and knowing a lot of almost magic > names, thus it gets copy-pasted). Criticism of the interface is fine. Rewrite it. No one will stop you. > I'd mainly prefer a nicer read > interface, but if we redo the read interface, I'd rather it come from a > human readable source. And less duplication is better. > This is the truly strange thing. You are advocating communicating between programs by text files. This is a bizarre, and I thought dead, opinion. I would much rather have structured data, than unstructured text that we parse each time we want to do something. Matt -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.caam.rice.edu/~mk51/>
