On Tuesday 25 September 2007 08:00:16 pm John Simpson wrote:
> On 2007-09-25, at 1331, Joshua Megerman wrote:
> >> i vote for "a" and "c" during a transition period, then "c" as the
> >> only option after that.
> >> in either case, i think "d" might be taking the idea too far.
> > Yeah, I realized that after the fact. I'm great ad coming up with
> > lots of
> > ideas of what can be dine, and then I need to rein them in as to what
> > _should_ be done :)
> oh i see, so you're an "idea rat" (pardon the dilbert reference)...
> surprising, most idea rats end up in marketing because they can't
> program their way out of a wet paper bag, but from what i've seen
> your code seems pretty solid. maybe you're a better patcher than a
> writer? i suffer from that myself- i find i do a better job of
> programming if i'm patching existing code, or writing against a
> previous design... problem is that when i start something from
> scratch, i tend to not do that separate design step ahead of time and
> end up slowing myself down.
> the other thing i seem to be good at is the "sanity checking", poking
> holes in ideas (my own included.) at past jobs, windows developers
> always hated to have me sit in on their meetings, because i would
> always bring up security issues before they had even started writing
> code... they eventually got over it, after their web apps got hacked
> and they had to very quickly add the changes i had originally
> suggested, while i rebuilt the server and restored from a backup
> taken just before they installed their stuff... i just don't like it
> when other peoples' stupidity causes me to have extra work.
Yeah, that sounds about right - I'm great with patching (I learned C (I had
experience with Basic & Pascal previously) by pulling in code from about half
a dozen different MUDs and combining them into one), and I can take existing
concepts and make programs for them moderately well, but I've rarely done
full-scale development from the ground up. I've got a couple of things that
I made from ground-zero that I'll get around to releasing someday, but I'm
less inclined to spend my day doing all of the necessary things for proper
software development than tinkering :)
And I'm right with you as to poking holes in ideas - I have a tendency
to "think outside the box", occasionally to the annoyance of the people I
> >>> 3) In all cases, even if the vpopmail binaries are linked against
> >>> the
> >>> shared library, the static library libvpopmail.a should be built
> >>> since
> >>> some programs expect it.
> >> maybe for interim versions, to give other programs' developers time
> >> to deal with the change... but i think that a "vpopmail version 6"
> >> should be "shared only".
> > I don't see why there shouldn't be a static library that has
> > exactly the
> > same ABI as the shared one, in case someone wants (or needs) a static
> > binary. But they should be interchangable at compile time.
> maybe we can always build the shared version, and have a configure
> option "--with-static-library" (which would not be active by default)
> which builds a static "libvpopmail.a" for people who may need it,
> even though the programs in the vpopmail package won't need it?
I can see it either way, but it's one of those things that doesn't really
drive the code development, so it can be decided later :)
> either way, i think we need to move the thread over to the devel
> list. anybody who's interested should subscribe and look for it there.
Sounds good to me - I'm on the list, so I'll see it there (and am cc'ing it
SJGames MIB #5273 - OGRE AI Testing Division
You can't win; You can't break even; You can't even quit the game.
- Layman's translation of the Laws of Thermodynamics