3 ms·
It is probably fairly easy to create a fork of Apache with a better configuration language. The fact that no such fork exist (or more precisely, the fact that y
by hollerith 6y ago
It is probably fairly easy to create a fork of Apache with a better configuration language. The fact that no such fork exist (or more precisely, the fact that you don't mention it, which is strong evidence that you know of no such fork) is evidence that most Apache users are OK with or roughly indifferent toward its conf language. (I know nothing of it.)
I, too, believe that usability matters a lot, and I'm curious what you think of bash.
- btown 6y agoOr it could be evidence of Apache's configuration language being closely tied into its internal implementation in a spaghetti-code way! If there's one fundamental truth in open source, it's that maintaining things is hard, doubly so when it's a fork of a complex system that few people fully understand. The absence of a fork does not mean users are satisfied, simply that the people who might be motivated to fork have better alternatives for their time (for instance, learning Nginx).
- bschwindHN 6y ago> I'm curious what you think of bash. I'm not very fond of it, to put it lightly. You can get some things done quickly in it, I'll admit, but anything past a few hundred lines quickly becomes unmaintainable.