On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:34, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > Errr... Are you aware that Pádraic Brady, the one you wrote these words to, > has written thousands of lines of code to make it possible for PHP-based > PSHB implementations to be written in "just a few lines of code"? Someone > else (actually many people) wrote the thousands of lines of code that your > "few" lines of ruby rely on in order to provide a small, limited function > SMTP library. But, that's not surprising. An important part of getting > protocols used by people is to build the libraries that hide the complexity > and detail of protocols so that drag-and-drop coders, script-kiddies and > others can implement useful stuff without too much trouble. There will be > "simple" ruby interfaces to PSHB one day, if there isn't one already. In any > case, an LOC count for a library interface doesn't say anything useful about > the underlying system.
well this is a turn for the worse... yes, i know him and i've used his code. i have over 200000 lines of open source code released myself (some it bundled on your current computer if it happens to a windows, osx, linux, or solaris) and am vaguely aware of things like measures of complexity. it's absolutely the case that LOC is a fair, but rough, heuristic for wrapping one's head around the difficulty involved in a domain. running my same script on ruby's soap library is quite revealing cfp:1.8$ find soap/ -type f|xargs -n1 cat|loc 7943 flawed and imperfect though it is - the size of libraries and the length of documentation detailing protocols is as valid an approach as any for guestimating complexity. ref: http://rubyforge.org and http://rubyforge.org/projects/codeforpeople/ > No. It takes thousands of lines of code to provide TLS support. The mere > fact that you need not be aware of that code is irrelevant. Any useful > protocol or capability will eventually be wrapped in a simple library > interface allowing it to be used with minimal understanding on the part of > casual coders. The fact that SMTP and TLS have already had such wrappers > written speaks only to their age, not to whether they are the best protocols > to handle any particular problem. sigh. well i'll duck out now. for the record brett invited me to the list to ask this question: --- from Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> sender-time Sent at 18:50 (UTC). Current time there: 6:01 PM. ✆ date Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 18:50 subject Re: i'm still waiting for someone to expain to me how pubsubhubbub is superior mailing Hey Ara, I think this is a great question that we should discuss it in our public forum so we can answer the question for everyone else who may wonder this too. Mind posting something there? http://groups.google.com/group... Thanks and i'm wishing i hadn't, despite the fact that i learned a little bit. hopefully this thread will serve posterity well when people like me go looking for answers... to anyone interested: http://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ could really use a page or two detailing the answers to these questions indicated in this thread. the 'ComaringProtocols' page makes too few comparisons now and, since questions like these obviously make people angry (oddly), some documentation might settle everyone down. also, the culture of open source projects is absolutely as important to their adoption as the actual technology - including tolerating newbs on mailing lists. so long, and thanks for all the fish -- /me unsubscribes. -a -- be kind whenever possible... it is always possible - h.h. the 14th dalai lama
