Re: [MiNT] Sparemint Site/Updater

[evan@coolrunningconcepts.com]

Quoting Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.com>:

> As with ozk said on WCOWORK and XaAES, I can always just stop working on
> it.  It's not that big of a deal, don't make it out to be one.  GDBM
> sounds like a hassle still.  I wanted something high level, fast, and

Uhmm .. I never said you had to use it.  I was only curious why that decision
had been made, nothing more.  Its just an idle question!   I'm beginning to
think that its not allowed to ask a question anymore because someone will fly
off the handle.  I wasn't even suggesting that you use it!

> wise.  And I don't know why everyone hates that attitude.  While I am
> doing it for the community, I'm mostly doing it out of my own

No, its interesting that you didn't care to learn IPC and didn't care to
seperate the front end from the back end.  The "Interesting Attitude" is that
you code based on what you feel like and not based on what the majority 
feel is
a good practice.  I'm just wondering how many badly written applications that
don't work under MiNT were written with that very same attitude of "I don't
care.  I'll do it my way" in mind.   Now, I'm NOT saying that your program
doesn't work.  I'm NOT saying its crap.  I'm NOT saying that the design 
choices
are wrong.   I just said that the attitude is interesting ... NOT that its a
wrong attitude, but there really isn't much room to make suggestions as you'll
do it your way anyway.   Don't read too much into it, OK?

> need/desire.  You know, I wrote gim and asked for suggestions and very
> few people gave me any and even fewer people use it.  When it comes down

I wasn't around then.  My suggestion would have been to look into adding a GEM
interface around libgaim since glib is already ported, but thats just me.

> to it, I wrote it for myself.  While I expect sum to be more widely
> used, I don't expect a lot of people in terribly limited ram situations
> to be using it... and ram is the only real reason besides "properness"
> to separate the gem from the console portion.  And it doesn't even need

No - the idea is that you can easily change and debug the front end and 
back-end
seperately, or create a new front end or a new backend.  Its a code modularity
thing, not a RAM thing.

> Finally, I think I'd rather be an asshole (or wrong) who puts forth the
> effort then the nice guy who will let everyone else push him around for
> what amounts to no good reason.  At least my way things will get done
> because I won't be screwing around with stuff I don't know well - and
> thus will be very slow to implement.

Nobody is pushing you around.   Gemdos handle redirection is very simple.  I'm
just surprised its not more common and that everyone doesn't know it.  
Where do
you get all this implied hostility?

> Besides only you and Standa spoke up so the idea isn't universally
> hated ;)  And I know I could convince Standa of the virtues of my way

Never said hated!   You said you didn't know IPC, I gave you one way its often
done so you could better modularize your code.  You ignored the 
suggestion with
a "I'll do it my way no matter what" statement, which I found interesting, but
otherwise ... its your choice.   You've already said the GEM interface can be
removed completely, so I don't have any problem with that at all!

> makes good simplistic design sense.  The only separated ones are apt
> which doesn't even have a gui interface AFAIK and yum which has a VERY
> poor gui interface.

How well these other interfaces work is totally off-topic.  I can site 
plenty of
other bad programming designs.  It doesn't mean something similar designed by
another person is going to be better or worse.

Got a valium?  Take some!  Everyone is so touchy here!