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.
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.
Attachment:
pgp8ULki59Iw3.pgp
Description: PGP signature