Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components

[Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>]

on 7/23/2005 2:06 AM, evan@coolrunningconcepts.com wrote:

> Quoting Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>:
> 
>> Because there are no libs that require or use WCO to date, thus you are in
>> effect talking about old libs.   As I said if you want to use it you will
>> have to be darn sure all your components can deal with it.  It's new.
> 
> Old libs?   You mean ALL libs.   Making sure all components can deal with it
> sound like exactly my point ... I can't use it, so why should someone else?
> And it goes nowhere.
> 
>> Even if you changed the way it works, and converted it all to new API calls.
>> Same problem.  Someone could just as easily make a lib that required the new
>> API calls and ignores the old calls, or vise versa.  Then you are back to
>> square one, not knowing what works with what.
>> 
>> This is an endless loop.
> 
> My point exactly!

So now I'm totally with Ozk, now you are making no sense at all.  Suddenly
all libs are broken no matter what method is used.  Then why bring it up.
 
>> I have tried.  Not getting anywhere.  I would suggest at this point you do
>> one of 3 things.
>> 
>> 1) Stop complaining about it, since that route generally don't work in the
>> end, especially if the main gripe is simply "This is not a good design"
>> That does not exactly clarify anything for Ozk.
> 
> I'm not complaining - I've asked for specifics on what the benefits are
> and why
> the alternative solution would not offer that benefit, but no one can tell me.
> 
>> 2) Present some VERY detailed alternative with some example code, API calls,
>> docs etc.  Pretty much the only way you are going to effectively change
>> minds.
> 
> I did!  No one read it or they simply dismissed it.  Ozk simply ignored it
> because he is adamant that using new calls is a bad idea, but has yet to
> express  why.  Apparently no one knows the answer.

He said why at least 3 times.  You better go back thru the archive and
re-read it.  Goodness.
 
>> 3) Take over dev yourself.  Ultimately the best way to get your point
>> across.
> 
> No - Implementing my ideas without discussion is as bad or worse than
> implementing someone elses.  I want the discussion and resolution and
> compromise to get the majority of people understanding why its being done and
> happy with the solution before its implemented.  I see no point in fragmenting
> whats left of the existing user base.  We're supposed to work together here.

The platform is already fragmented to a certain extent.  Magic is largely to
blame for that mess.  I could careless about fragmentation, I'll be using
this Atari's till they stop working regardless.

Quite frankly I don't think anyone can come up with a solution that won't
cause lib nightmares or break something along the way.  Every lib author can
selectively decided at what level to implement and support what he sees fit.
There is no guarantee down the road all things will work together.

I give up.  Please branch off an experimental CVS tree of your own and prove
your theory.  Until such time Ozk's implementation is superior to anything I
heard you utter in my opinion.  Good luck.

-- 
Lonny Pursell    http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/