From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Mon Dec 27 1999 - 09:42:19 MST
Gene:
>Really mean
>badass BDSM torture test suites.
I should start an SQA/compliance certification company with BDSM in the
name. I'd send you requests for bid any day, Eugene. :)
>As long as you can claim anything without having the burden of proof
>you're just screwed.
>
>You see, I've just devined by own Java. It's totally incompatible to
>anything, but it's true genuine organic 110% Java. You better believe
>it, d00d.
A few years ago, it was "you can sell anything if you call it Basic." Same
as it ever was.
A couple of months ago I was a rank beginner trying to learn Javascript.
Netscape's own sample Javascript on their tutorial web pages doesn't work
on my machine running a recent Netscape browser. When I finally hacked
something that seemed to work, I had no idea whether what I'd written
exploited a buggy implementation, or had overcome outdated or buggy docs.
Guess what? They can't be bothered to tell me what's wrong. So I can't be
bothered either.
Why? Why ask why? Ha ha, who cares, grab a bucket 'cause the chicken soup
is raining over _there_!
Eeesh.
> > In summary, I think I agree with all your points. I just am more
> > pessimistic in my vision of what could have happened had things been
> > different.
>
>We have a rich set of datapoints of what has been running wrong with
>the industry/market. While certainly a minority, it should be doable
>to define nonprofit longer-lived standards. In fact, survival of
>OpenSource coder community will be dependant on that.
Ever see/read the _Antipatterns_ book? I see several antipatterns weaving
through. "Why don't we do what we know how to do?"
MMB
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:12 MST