4 ms·
Ahh yes, we know this all too well, the Linux desktop trap: iterative work is lame, the old solution is so bad it's not even wrong, here is my idea for a rewri
by revelation 9y ago
Ahh yes, we know this all too well, the Linux desktop trap:
iterative work is lame, the old solution is so bad it's not even wrong, here is my idea for a rewrite, look it's even still compatible (for another few minutes).
- asveikau 9y agoI disagree with this characterization, because they explicitly state that compatibility with the original is a goal. When people have the more careless "re-write and throw-away" attitude, they often abandon the old API too. So this reads more of a strategic re-write, or re-do of implementation while keeping API, which I think is often a smart way to do it.
- jzl 9y agoaka the "CADT" model. :) https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html https://www.jwz.org/doc/cadt.html But, not saying that characterization applies here specifically. The article was quite well-reasoned in explaining the proposed changes, as far as I could tell. Disclaimer: I barely know anything about D-Bus.