[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [oleg@xxxxxxxxx: Interface view of dictionaries]



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