John, no need. When there are critiques of material substance instead of personal digs, then it's worth discussing. Mato, you can do better than this.
-Pieter On Feb 4, 2012 5:36 AM, "john skaller" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 04/02/2012, at 12:43 PM, Martin Lucina wrote: > > > > In my humble but correct opinion: > > IMHBCO .. I'll have to remember tat one :) > > > > Under Martin Sustrik's lead, we had a mediocre community, and a great > > product. > > > > Under Pieter Hintjens' lead, we have a great community, but are rapidly > > progressing towards a mediocre product. > > Can you point to issues in the actual source and documentation that > explain that view in more detail? > > I'm too new here to have a view, but I think that as we're in Pieter's > "contribution" phase for 3.1, and are yet to get up to the "rigorous > testing" phase intended to stabilise the product .. well you don't > seem to be giving Pieter's model a chance. > > I worked on a product which used a formal process with intense discussion > of many alternatives and supposedly rigorous analysis, experiment, > and rejection of many things before they made it into "the source". > The result .. well it seems a bit suboptimal, despite the intense vetting > and selection and guidance of a Benevolent Dictator. > [Er .. yes .. I'm talking about C++] > > Let me also say that for my own product I have gone through a cycle where > the rule was "add everything, including several kitchen sinks". > > Then there was the "if in doubt, chuck it out" culling phase > that followed. > > In between, the feature clutter was very useful because it provided > concrete use cases from which to attempt to form abstractions. > > -- > john skaller > [email protected] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > >
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
