llothar wrote: > On 21 Okt., 21:39, Arne Vajhøj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> That level of activity could be considered dead. > > For me at least 2% of the total line count should be changed > to call it non dead. > > I don't say it it not used anymore for users it might be > not dead but this is not the point under discussion here.
No, there are two points - not whether Tex is "dead", but whether it's a "dead end" (which do you mean?), and whether in any way that says anything about Knuth's ability as a programmer. Evidence is that TeX development is dead. There is not yet firm evidence that Tex is a "dead end" (or even what that means), and there has been none (nor, I expect, is there any) that any of that reflects on Knuth's skill as a programmer. The switch from asserting "dead end" to asserting "dead" is sort of an interesting rhetorical device. Just pick one or the other, or if you prefer, assert both, but please be clear. Should we just accept that you meant, "less than 2% of total line count changed"? Per year? Per century? What if the code is perfect and has no need of change? Is it (a) dead (end)? (Who uses line count as a metric of anything any more?) -- Lew -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
