Posted Jul 21, 2006 20:14 UTC (Fri) by cventers
In reply to: inotify
Parent article: OLS: On how user space sucks
> Most of your response is tangental to the argument I submitted.
Really? I'm not sure I see how. It seems to me like you were listing
counterpoints to my complaint about programming to the least common
denominator, and I was systematically addressing them (including your
quote about optimization)
> Here's the bottom line -- we're not all "above average" programmers.
> Even when we know what "the right way" is, we usually don't have that
> luxury due to externally-imposed constraints.
What does "average" have to do with it? It doesn't take oodles of talent
to build a model capable of using different implementations. Sometimes,
it's even more trouble to try and come up with something generic!
You allude to constraints but never mention what some of them might be.
> "Cheap, fast, good. Pick two"
Why pick just two? One of the greatest things about free software
development is that it's usually not the requirements-driven,
development uncomfortably familiar to programmers working in the
corporate world. And if our projects are being run that way (which I
don't think they are), we should move further up the chain and ask why
we're adopting policies and procedures that impose external constraints
on our code quality.
This stuff isn't actually all that complicated. The problem is either
*A) No one had pointed out ways in which apps misbehave, so no one knew
there was a problem (glad we have this paper to enumerate some examples!)
*B) Developers did what they thought was 'good enough' and just didn't
realize that their implementation didn't make their expectation
*C) We're less than average programmers and we can't figure this stuff
out for the life of us (doubt that, there's oodles of awesome free
software from all of the major projects out there, which demonstrates
So I think Dave's paper was spot-on. We should skip the 'apologizing'
step and move on to 'making it better'.
to post comments)