On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:58:55AM -0800, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> Tough. That is the only way you'll convince me of a flaw. No > >>> amount of positive proof through implementation is likely to satisfy > >>> you. > > Bradd W. Szonye wrote: > >> That's nice. I suggest that you take your proposal to a venue where: > >> > >> 1. The burden of proof is on the reviewers rather than the author, and > >> 2. Designers are not required to support their proposals with concrete > >> implementations. > >> > > > The burden of proof certainly rests on the author when there are valid > > criticisms. > > In the SRFI Process, "Your implementation is incomplete" certain is a > valid criticism. This is a circular argument. I'm now going to say you've provided no evidence to that point, you're going to say you have, and we're going to keep going in circles. > > Its unreasonable to expect an author defend against vaporous claims. > > It's not vaporous, your implementation *isn't* complete. Because you think something cannot be implemented in the future but won't say what it is? > > I do recommend that you revisit your design goals, because I feel that > they're inappropriate given the audience for your product. Bear and I > have both been trying to warn you of this. That's an issue that can't be > resolved with a just few tweaks before release. Also, the risks and > costs of failure are very high. A low-quality interface standard causes > more problems than it solves, and an untested interface standard has a > high risk of low quality. > And there are plenty of people that disagree with you but don't want to fan this flamewar.
Description: PGP signature