Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.220.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.220.175; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-vx0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <97305540.4426247.1310337435268.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb052>
References: <97305540.4426247.1310337435268.JavaMail.fmail@mwmweb052>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 11:33:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CANEZrP1gEx0_A+BQfJLQ1jppc=-qS1DwruR_wXsP-ctqZGGnjA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: Michael Offel <Michael.Offel@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] overall bitcoin client code quality
Precedence: list

> My overall suggestion is to begin a complete rewrite, inspired by the old
> code rather than moving a lot of "known to be somehow functional" around.

This essay is old but still relevant, I think:

  http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Despite that, there are efforts to write a fresh implementation. For
example, BitCoinJ:

  http://code.google.com/p/bitcoinj/

It is not a complete implementation. It's targeting the "simplified
payment verification" mode as a first base, and is mostly intended for
mobile phones today as that's a niche the current codebase can't meet.
In the (very) long run, it may evolve into a full node.

> Hopefully I did not hurt someone's feelings.

The code was written by Satoshi who is long gone, and I doubt he would
care much for this type of list anyway. He was a do-er rather than a
talker.