5 ms·
Do you care to address any of his points so as to be relevant to the article ostensibly being discussed here? He makes a fair argument to use his options, rathe
by req2 17y ago
Do you care to address any of his points so as to be relevant to the article ostensibly being discussed here?
He makes a fair argument to use his options, rather than Lamson's.
- tsally 17y agoHe looked at a Lamson release several versions out of date and several of his points are incorrect. So not only did he not take the time to check the newest version, he didn't take the time to properly analyze the version he did check. Choice example: command function (can’t invent better name, sorry) need to have preformatted name (like command_ping). This is incorrect. From the documentation: Note that the _command suffix is optional and configurable, but it is there to disambiguate your commands so you can use Python reserved words and base types as your command names. Without it, you can do a list_command or a for_command. This is after line 10 of the Lamson argument source file. Couldn't read that far I guess. I wont bother addressing his other points. Putting in effort to refute an argument put together with no effort is nothing something I enjoy doing.
- req2 17y agoThis would've been a much better initial post, though it still fails to address the merits of the system - more DRY, less required human toil, and (apparently) errors on incorrect command lines.
- tsally 17y agoI wasn't criticizing the new system, just his poor representation of existing solutions. I don't need to address the merits of his system. As for why I didn't make that my initial post, see above. Also, anyone who bothered to click on the link I provided could have seen just as easily as I did that the claims about Lamson were false.