4 ms·

> Arguments stand on their own. No, they don't. Arguments can be measured against reality. Let's check the score. 15 years later, Linux has been really smar

by jbooth 11y ago

> Arguments stand on their own. No, they don't. Arguments can be measured against reality. Let's check the score. 15 years later, Linux has been really smart about where to share code (vfs) and where not to (drivers, subject of this post). Linus was right, ESR was wrong. Trying to make a framework for everything is the hallmark of the intermediate programmer. Often you increase complexity and coupling in exchange for deduplicating a few lines of code here and there -- in a real system, I often prefer the few lines of duplication and the simpler overall design.

noselasd 11y ago
You're assuming Linus didn't change anything at all regarding how he works since this post was made though.
- jbooth 11y ago
  Of course he's changed things about how he works. But ESR was wrong about the specific change he was arguing for (more frameworky code for device drivers) in that mess of musings about maturity and intelligence. See elsewhere in this thread for links to the context. Ironically, imho, Raymond is the one who's afflicted by a "curse of the gifted" in thinking that one can come up with a future proof abstraction in a domain like that.
  - noselasd 11y ago
    That's a bit odd, as there has been a tremendous amount of framework code built for supporting various classes of device drivers since 2000, greatly reducing code you'd write or duplicate.
    - jbooth 11y ago
      I'm not very in touch with device drivers, but I suspect 'supporting classes of device drivers' vs 'a framework for all device drivers' is at the heart of the disagreement on frameworks here.
      - noselasd 11y ago
        No - not really, they're both significantly changed since the old days of linux, in the sense that many additional abstractions have been created for supporting a framework for all device drivers, as well as adding frameworks for supporting different classes of device drivers.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

by jbooth 11y ago

noselasd 11y ago

You're assuming Linus didn't change anything at all regarding how he works since this post was made though.

jbooth 11y ago
Of course he's changed things about how he works. But ESR was wrong about the specific change he was arguing for (more frameworky code for device drivers) in that mess of musings about maturity and intelligence. See elsewhere in this thread for links to the context. Ironically, imho, Raymond is the one who's afflicted by a "curse of the gifted" in thinking that one can come up with a future proof abstraction in a domain like that.
- noselasd 11y ago
  That's a bit odd, as there has been a tremendous amount of framework code built for supporting various classes of device drivers since 2000, greatly reducing code you'd write or duplicate.
  - jbooth 11y ago
    I'm not very in touch with device drivers, but I suspect 'supporting classes of device drivers' vs 'a framework for all device drivers' is at the heart of the disagreement on frameworks here.
    - noselasd 11y ago
      No - not really, they're both significantly changed since the old days of linux, in the sense that many additional abstractions have been created for supporting a framework for all device drivers, as well as adding frameworks for supporting different classes of device drivers.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]