> Hmm. Seems my opinion of Linux kernel mailing list is totally opposite > of yours
I don't think it's opposite. I also find it abrasive and downright unpleasant at times. But ideas do get mercilessly critiqued and work gets done. > And I disagree with your latter point. That's just reducing the amount > of innovation you could have. Sure, "don't reinvent the wheel" seems > to be a catchphrase nowadays, but I think it's very misleading. This is too vague to respond to .. > That said, Google does not release just about everything it has to the > open source pool. I know it's a ton of work. So much the more reason to publish more of it. It will gain more ready acceptance for the released code, get more mileage out of the work done. Even if they say "We didn't use ASN.1 because the super bright kids who wrote PB weren't born when it was invented" that would be useful. > While open-sourcing might look easy, it is not. Once a code is > open-sourced, there will be streams of requests for improvements, > questions to be answered, For example: "Why didn't you use [ASN.1, etc]". A question like that isn't just "Why didn't you use [my pet project]". It is rather "Why specifically aren't these proven technologies sufficient?" The answers would be very useful. > the engineers who were involved in the development; and they have > pride with their works, like most of us, coders, do). Like the engineers who worked on and with ASN.1, etc. also do. > Hmm. Seems the main announcement only states something like "think XML > but ...", I might be wrong, but it's just stating the most popular > format; There's nothing "seems" about it. Kenton specifically mentions DOM processing, which is completely out of the ballpark for applications using XML for this kind of application, as pointed out by boris in http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2008/07/protocol-buffers-googles-data.html?showComment=1215506160000#c8124540313827619601 >> and maybe the people who implemented it know ASN.1 backwards. We >> shouldn't have to take it on faith, though. > > They probably do, or at least knows what it can and can't do. Well yes, exactly, that's what I said. "They probably do". We shouldn't have to take it on faith, though. -- jean . .. .... //\\\oo///\\ _______________________________________________ Slugnet mailing list [email protected] http://wiki.lugs.org.sg/LugsMailingListFaq http://www.lugs.org.sg/mailman/listinfo/slugnet
