Re: Status of lposix?

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

Cosmin Apreutesei wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 07:52, KHMan <keinhong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Cosmin Apreutesei wrote:
> > > [snip snip]
> > Can
> > you provide the list with specific examples? I'm interested in learning
> > about your specific examples of weaknesses in the libraries you mention.
>
> I'll prepare something :) (examples are in this thread too...
> make_backslash(), add_extension() -- what's an extension in unix?)
> meanwhile...

My, you're hard to please :-)

> > You give two parties, one for "full API coverage" and the other for
> > "portable apps". Which party are you for and against?
>
> I'm not for or against any of these goals. It's the designer's choice.
> In practice I always endup needing the full coverage libs. You forgot
> the third goal: "performance".

My, you're hard to please :-)

> > If you want to have
> > both, can you propose ways in which the two can live together peacefully?
>
> I think you can't. You have to choose and stay focused on your goals.
>
> > And if you need portability, it has to be simpler, so what are the bad
> > "abstractions" you are referring to? Many libraries expose basic objects,
> > can you provide clear examples where in your opinion the objects were
> > overcooked?
>
> Ugh, rant is easy, research is hard, and I don't want to start a fire :)

Well, I wanted to find out more, so I deliberately poked a bit :-)

Since you sounded "so demanding" and had such incredibly high 
standards, I wanted to find out more about specifics. But as 
usual, opinionated talk is easy.

I'll leave this thread to others. If you have a library you did, I 
would be interested to know how the /you/ did your library. :-) 
But alas, all is talk, this is also talk, we are all talk. 
Frankly, those who write the code rules the roost, and if anyone 
is unhappy, then can very well do a better job if they think they 
can. :-) ;-)

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia