Maarten / Gregg The good thing about benevolent dictators for example Linus Torvalds (Linux), Larry Wall (Perl), Guido Van Rossum (Python) is that they make their program / project source code available, that is why they are benevolent. Yes they strictly control and decide upon what goes into the "official" code base or release and that's where the dictator part of the title comes from.
However with Linux, Perl & python, if some feature is missing or something doesn't work for you then you can change it or implement it differently yourself ( or pay someone to do it for you) and create your own modified version that works for you. These changes don't affect the "official" released versions but if they're useful and provide value then they may or may not find their way into the official code base if the benevolent dictator eventually decides to accept your patches, or not! THIS it aint so with REBOL, BUT I aint complaining about that. however I for one would much prefer it if Carl Sassenrath adopted the benevolent dictator model but Iam not going to hold my breath waiting. Best wishes, Mark Dickson In a message dated Fri, 8 Feb 2002 3:13:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Maarten Koopmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with Gregg. > The model of the benevolent dictator (is that correct English?) seems the > best. > > See Linus(x) as well. > > --maarten > > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > << My point is that by conciously deciding to disable the pair! datatype > to > > be used with the greater than / less than comparator function, for the > > reasons Holger outlined, which i disagree with and are an unneccesary and > > artificial restriction in my opinion, then the pair! datatype is "lame" in > > comparison with some of the other numeric datatypes, tuple!'s as I gave in > > my example spring immediately to mind. >> > > > > I can see things both ways. On one hand, we can say "we want all datatypes > > to support all operations", OTOH that may not be the best design choice > and, > > if doing so severely impacted performance for the most common usage, or > > added bugs, we'd probably complain about that. :) > > > > I think it's RT's job, maybe their hardest one, *not* to give us > everything > > we ask for. If they did, REBOL would become a language designed by > committee > > and would suffer greatly for it, IMO. That's one of the reasons I'm > > *opposed* to them making it open source at this time. Maybe someday, when > > the language has matured, it would work but I'm not even sure about that. > > I'm a big believer in the power of conceptual integrity and that's hard to > > maintain in a large group, or even a small one. :) > > > > --Gregg > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > > subject, without the quotes. > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the > subject, without the quotes. -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
