[Chandler-dev] [Sum] The Great Architecture Discussion of
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Oct 10 09:24:34 PDT 2007
At 08:44 AM 10/10/2007 -0700, Andi Vajda wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>And one of those reasons is that it's a silly thing to
>>offer. You're not a samurai, so there's no need to commit
>>hara-kiri just because some features got re-prioritized. Put the
>>sword away, already, nobody is questioning your honor. :)
Yes. Because you are not the repository, and the repository is not
Chandler. What's more, your numerous other contributions to Chandler
significantly outweigh the repository in both short-term and
long-term importance. And that's even more true today than it was
the first time you made your "offer".
>It is rather discouraging to be told after all this time and work
>that we did it all wrong,
"We" is a personal identification.
"Wrong" is a moral judgment.
I have made neither, so these are your interpretations rather than my
If somebody shows you a shorter way to get to the office from your
home, and you have been going a much longer way for five years, does
that mean that you were "all wrong", or that your trips to the office
were all wasted in some way?
If you used a typewriter to write a novel, and then later word
processors are invented, is the novel now "wrong"? Is the typewriter?
The existence of a better way to do something cannot make a
less-better way "wrong" retroactively. If it was good enough to use
before, then clearly it was not so "wrong" as to *not have been worth doing*.
>I don't want to stand in the way of progress, in other words.
How do you believe you are standing in the way of progress?
More information about the chandler-dev