[Chandler-dev] [Sum] The Great Architecture Discussion of 2007

[Phillip J. Eby]

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.  :)
>
>Silly ?

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 
statements.

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?