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.
scgmille@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > So you'd rather we standardize an inferior [dispatch] mechanism now? No, I'd rather standardaze a *working* mechanism now. Until somebody develops the better mousetrap, the basic mousetrap is not actually inferior. I'd rather have a working, portable implementation today than a "perfect" vaporware implementation tomorrow. Also, I think you missed this part: > By your above argument, you can't fix it retroactively through a new > SRFI, because it will equally annoy users of both vendors who still > have to change to whatever is standardized in a specification, while > in the meantime annoying all users by locking them into an inferior > dispatch mechanism. First, I think you must've missed this: When you plan for obsolescence in an agreed-upon standard, implementors can assume (or at least hope) that any successors will have a standard upgrade path from the previous standard. In other words, implementors and users can expect a convenient upgrade path to the better mousetrap. If it isn't convenient, then they may not accept the new version. Oh well. Second, until the new mechanism exists, the original one isn't inferior. Also see Bear's excellent discussion of "Ozymandias." > At least my way doesn't annoy everyone all of the time. All standards annoy everyone. The trick is to annoy them as little as possible. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd