This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 44 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 44 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
> bear wrote: >> My experience though with people providing "uniform APIs" is that it >> creates a strong temptation to regard the underlying data structures >> as interchangeable modules, without regard to the efficiency of >> operations in those structures. This becomes a design requirement, >> and then people restrict their use of primitives to just those >> primitives available in *all* of the potential modules. scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Thats hardly a design issue. Thats more a matter of bad management or > design on the part of the end user. Please, quit trying to dodge responsibility on this issue. Some designs are error-prone. While *some* of the responsibility falls on the people who actually make the errors, a *large* part of it falls on the designer who keeps producing error-prone designs even after he's been informed of the problem. You've responded this way on more than one issue -- performance and usability, at least. This is part of why I don't trust your design, why I keep insisting on more implementation experience before you finalize. "But it's not MY fault" is never an appropriate answer to a review comment. I'd add "egoless programming" to the list of things you should read up on. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd