🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <djd.718455004@reading>, djd@csg.cs.reading.ac.uk (David J Dawkins) writes:
> tootill@sde.mdso.vf.ge.COM (Tootill Ed) writes:
> 
> >			[On FSF code]
> >
> > Rhetorical comment: Why is "free" synonymous with "who needs
> > documentation, let them figure it out the hard way".
 
>     Most freely available software has excellent documentation.  You're
>     hard pushed in justifying your bitchin'.
>     You must have a duff distribution, I had no problems. Are you using the
>     gcc2.2.2 release, which also builds g++? I think I just had to type 
> 	  % ./configure sun4
> 	  % build_install # or make, some nice script anyway.

That isn't documentation, that's a well-debugged interface to the
environment.  Trouble is, the environment is always changing and
there is no such thing as a permanently debugged interface.

Anyhow, my flame concerns the quality of FSF-distributed code.  It's often
brilliant in its execution (pardon the pun) but the craftsmanship of the
coding is nearly the worst that I've seen.  Craftsmanship counts, folks.  C++
class headers should have descriptions of what the frotzenglarkin' thing MEANS.
(The `indent' and `brace' styles don't help, IMO--but that's MO.)

Compare the FSF code with the source code that Sun has made available;
there's a large difference.

Use FSF-provided code by all means, and be grateful for it, too--but expect
to have to pull your hair out whenever something, however small, needs to be
changed.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ