Matthias Heidbrink wrote: > In many standard APIs from very different areas I have seen have > functionality to pass proprietary commands to devices.
The problem is that you trade standardization for flexibility, and the result of that is inevitably divergence in quality when no single stakeholder is responsible for the software as a whole. Noone will bother with "due diligence" or perceived "overhead effort" merely for the sake of interoperability unless it is the only possible way. > The problem with this approach is that at the time you design > something like a SR_CONF key with a specific semantics, usually you > don’t know all devices on the market, and even future ones IMO that's perfectly fine, and a good reason for APIs to be versioned, and for implemementing the previous API on top of the new one in a backwards compatibility shim. [email protected] wrote: > Anyway I think you make a good case for this. Anyone agree/disagree The arguments for bypassing standardization look appealing at first, but in the long run I do not feel that they are worth their cost. //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Command Line: Reinvented for Modern Developers Did the resurgence of CLI tooling catch you by surprise? Reconnect with the command line and become more productive. Learn the new .NET and ASP.NET CLI. Get your free copy! http://sdm.link/telerik _______________________________________________ sigrok-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sigrok-devel
