+1 On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Eric Mill <[email protected]> wrote:
> As much as I shared Brad's distaste for what I think is a jarring and > unuseful question, I think the way Brad responded at first, by > labeling the question "not serious" and attempting to shut the door > quickly, opened the door for people to be disrespectful to the > original poster. > > I don't know how I'd have handled it if I were in Brad's shoes, maybe > not any better, but I think going forward we should try to be more > diplomatic. We don't want to litter an otherwise positive mailing > list about an exciting new project with negative threads like this > one. > > -- Eric > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah well that's a bummer, especially since I suggested he come on here. > > > > Not sure if a few heated exchanges justify "quitting the scene," but > > could everyone try harder to turn the other cheek? We're going to get > > more people asking questions like this in the future, and even if it's > > annoying to some folks it's important to stay constructive. Thanks, > > > > -Brett > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:15 AM, ara.t.howard <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 > >> > > > -- Jeff Lindsay http://progrium.com
