3 ms·

That's just defeatism, not arguing against cathedral-style development. Just because we're likely to be wrong to some degree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be

That's just defeatism, not arguing against cathedral-style development. Just because we're likely to be wrong to some degree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be as close to right as possible. Anyway, I get the impression that for the original example of libtool, cathedral vs bazaar is the wrong question to be asking. [1] The problem isn't one of design or implementation. It seems a problem of distribution. I posit you could build a simplified, cross-platform library linker via either a centralised or distributed process. The question is rather, could you get everyone to agree to actually use it? Considering the success of clang, I think you'd stand a reasonable chance. (speaking of which, clang doesn't exactly stand out as a pure-bred bazaar-model example; neither is GCC for that matter) Actually, I think that's what's wrong with this whole thread and the article that triggers it. I'm fed up as anyone with the layers of crap that we're building our software on. I seem to spend most of my time yak shaving because of some legacy decision, not contributing new stuff. In fact, my main output seems to be adapters for crappy interfaces. So while I find myself nodding along with the original essay, I think cathedral vs bazaar has nothing to do with the quality of the code we use all the time. It's a question of having the resources and balls to replace the layers of crap when necessary instead of carrying on piling more of them. Whether or not that's possible is mainly a question of whether the systems you absolutely need to retain are open or not. (and open source software can still be developed cathedral-style - I'm pretty sure ESR considered GNU to be cathedral software) As an aside, when was the last time the format of .a/.so/.dylib/.lib/.dll files drastically changed on the respective operating system? We change even prevailing processor architecture a lot more often than that! [1] I'll have to admit ignorance on the specific detail on the problem that libtool solves (inelegantly). I hope that doesn't derail my argument too much.

rbanffy 14y ago
> Just because we're likely to be wrong to some degree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be as close to right as possible. Of course not! We should try to get as much of what we are doing right. We also must realize we are not as clever as we think we are (or would like to be). Cathedrals are monuments to imaginary deities. As such, they aren't subject to the laws of reality. Our efforts should, OTOH, be guided by what's real and measurable and take into account that what we "know" but can't measure is nothing more than an educated guess.

rbanffy 14y ago

> Just because we're likely to be wrong to some degree doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be as close to right as possible. Of course not! We should try to get as much of what we are doing right. We also must realize we are not as clever as we think we are (or would like to be). Cathedrals are monuments to imaginary deities. As such, they aren't subject to the laws of reality. Our efforts should, OTOH, be guided by what's real and measurable and take into account that what we "know" but can't measure is nothing more than an educated guess.