1. [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
Bernie,
I'm really conflicted on this issue. You, and Jiri (and probably Wolfgang?)
(and possibly a substantial number of others?) would apparently like to see
much fewer posts here relating to the *details* of the development of
Windows stuff.
I have two concerns about this:
1. I can see your point, *and* I (also) don't want to piss off some of the
best programmers on the list, both because it's just not my style/nature,
and because I am, to be painfully honest, not very good at programming &
need all the help I can get (& pissing off the best obviously isn't a good
way to go about getting that help); so with these in mind, I would be
inclined to simply take your advice, and refrain from posting questions /
bug reports / suggestions about the development of the IDE and Win32Lib
*here*, and send such privately to the relevant developer(s);
2. However, a number of factors suggest otherwise:
a) Judith and I have both received private mail *requesting* keeping the
IDE design *details* public, so that others can both *follow* the direction
of its design, and offer comments relating to *guiding* that direction;
b) some on the list have indicated that they *appreciate* seeing the
detail of the development of the IDE, because it shows them that it's being
worked on seriously ("...Judith sounds like she's picking at every damn
thing, which is very good to see someone beating away at it.");
c) when the details of the development of the IDE (or any other project)
are public, problems which come up may be read by a wider audience, and
*solutions* offered from that wider audience which might not have occurred
(or occurred as quickly) to the coder themselve(s), which is a good thing,
and not outside the fundamental purpose of the list.
The above two concerns seem to me to be entirely (and equally) valid; my
support for the suggestion to separate the list was just an effort to
attempt to reconcile *both* of them. I would welcome any better suggestion
for reconciling *both* concerns, or arguments which negate my second
concern.
Dan
(who wants to do the right thing)
P.S.
sent to the list instead of private due to concern 2c
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bernie" <xotron at PCOM.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:54 AM
Subject: Re: POLL: Split the List?
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:37 +0930, Mark Brown <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
wrote:
>
> >Hi Dan
> >
> >I vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
>
>
> I also vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
>
> When david was working on the win32lib he didn't post to the list
> every time he change a line of code or came up with a different way
> of displaying a control. I am sure that david used a lot of private
> e-mail to design the win32lib and did not fill the list with unnessary
> details.
>
> A another list is not necessary, only send your details to the
developers
> of win32lib by private e-mail so the new users and old users can use
> the list to ask for help, and discuss other general topics including
> windows.
>
> Bernie
2. Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
In furtherance of 2c (sorry, I can't find a way to negate your second concern)
Both concerns are valid, I agree - but not *equally* valid. It's possible for
subscribers to filter out posts irrelevant to their interests, but no ethical or
remotely feasible way exists to "filter in" your private email with other
developers. While I personally at the moment am not interested in the many posts
regarding IDE details, I don't even bother to filter them out because "IDE
problems" are not at all unique - sooner or later I expect I'll run into similar
ones, and will be glad to remember (or look up) what you've already learned and
documented.
Personally, I think it's very ballsy and admirable of you to be willing to
discuss your problems and mistakes in public. If the volume of traffic is a real
issue, we ought to direct the exclusionary attitudes toward the juvenile "flame
wars" over languages and OS's which are blatantly off-topic (and totally
uninformative) - there are lots of alternate existing forums for that activity.
Ben
Dan B Moyer wrote:
> Bernie,
>
> I'm really conflicted on this issue. You, and Jiri (and probably Wolfgang?)
> (and possibly a substantial number of others?) would apparently like to see
> much fewer posts here relating to the *details* of the development of
> Windows stuff.
>
> I have two concerns about this:
>
> 1. I can see your point, *and* I (also) don't want to piss off some of the
> best programmers on the list, both because it's just not my style/nature,
> and because I am, to be painfully honest, not very good at programming &
> need all the help I can get (& pissing off the best obviously isn't a good
> way to go about getting that help); so with these in mind, I would be
> inclined to simply take your advice, and refrain from posting questions /
> bug reports / suggestions about the development of the IDE and Win32Lib
> *here*, and send such privately to the relevant developer(s);
>
> 2. However, a number of factors suggest otherwise:
> a) Judith and I have both received private mail *requesting* keeping the
> IDE design *details* public, so that others can both *follow* the direction
> of its design, and offer comments relating to *guiding* that direction;
> b) some on the list have indicated that they *appreciate* seeing the
> detail of the development of the IDE, because it shows them that it's being
> worked on seriously ("...Judith sounds like she's picking at every damn
> thing, which is very good to see someone beating away at it.");
> c) when the details of the development of the IDE (or any other project)
> are public, problems which come up may be read by a wider audience, and
> *solutions* offered from that wider audience which might not have occurred
> (or occurred as quickly) to the coder themselve(s), which is a good thing,
> and not outside the fundamental purpose of the list.
>
> The above two concerns seem to me to be entirely (and equally) valid; my
> support for the suggestion to separate the list was just an effort to
> attempt to reconcile *both* of them. I would welcome any better suggestion
> for reconciling *both* concerns, or arguments which negate my second
> concern.
>
> Dan
> (who wants to do the right thing)
>
> P.S.
> sent to the list instead of private due to concern 2c
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bernie" <xotron at PCOM.NET>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:54 AM
> Subject: Re: POLL: Split the List?
>
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:37 +0930, Mark Brown <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
> wrote:
> >
> > >Hi Dan
> > >
> > >I vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> >
> >
> > I also vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> >
> > When david was working on the win32lib he didn't post to the list
> > every time he change a line of code or came up with a different way
> > of displaying a control. I am sure that david used a lot of private
> > e-mail to design the win32lib and did not fill the list with unnessary
> > details.
> >
> > A another list is not necessary, only send your details to the
> developers
> > of win32lib by private e-mail so the new users and old users can use
> > the list to ask for help, and discuss other general topics including
> > windows.
> >
> > Bernie
3. Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
- Posted by Kat <gertie at PELL.NET>
Oct 13, 2000
-
Last edited Oct 14, 2000
On 13 Oct 2000, at 19:08, Ben Fosberg wrote:
> Personally, I think it's very ballsy and admirable of you to be willing to
> discuss your problems and mistakes in public.
Oh? Judith ...... errrrr,, hmmmm,,, nevermind,, i guess....
Kat
4. [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
I certainly didn't mean to slight Judith - she's clearly putting in much time
and effort, and I find her efforts (as well as yours) very beneficial. But your
comments suggested another reason to keep the discussion public. There are many
people on this list who're just learning the craft, and I think the public
discussion can be particularly useful to them because it demonstrates several
important principles better than just repeating them would, to wit:
1) Even experienced programmers run into all sorts of weird little problems and
gotchas on a regular basis, and even the very best occasionally make a "dumb
mistake;"
2) it may or may not be embarrassing, but it's always smart to say "Help - I'm
stumped", when it happens; and
3) passing your code around (aka "peer review") is an excellent way to ensure
the quality and utility of your work. Loners toiling in an attic seldom produce
anything of significant value to the rest of the world.
Ben
Dan B Moyer wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Thank you, & very well put. No one who has *objected* to excessive [WIN]
> posts has responded to my concerns about the potential *usefulness* of
> discussions about the *details* of the development of an application. If
> something's posted, you (or someone *else*) *might* learn something from it;
> if it's *not*, you can't. If it's posted, you can offer direction,
> guidance, suggestions, questions; if it's not, you (and *everyone else*) is
> left out. And as I said, no one who has *objections* has responded to this
> concern.
>
> The only reason I support the suggestion that the list be split is to give
> equal weight to both concerns, (too much vs too little), but I take your
> point that they're not exactly equal: too much can be filtered or ignored,
> but too little can't be filtered "in". But then there's the question of
> "confusion" if the list were split. Sigh. But the question of splitting it
> might be moot, anyway, 'cause Robert hasn't said anything one way or
> another, & it's pretty much his list.
>
> Oh, and do bear in mind that it is *Judith* who is continuing the
> development of the IDE; I'm just looking for bugs & offering various
> suggestions of things to consider including in it.
>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ben Fosberg" <BenFosberg at ATT.NET>
> To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
>
> > In furtherance of 2c (sorry, I can't find a way to negate your second
> concern)
> >
> >
> > Both concerns are valid, I agree - but not *equally* valid. It's possible
> for
> > subscribers to filter out posts irrelevant to their interests, but no
> ethical or
> > remotely feasible way exists to "filter in" your private email with other
> > developers. While I personally at the moment am not interested in the many
> posts
> > regarding IDE details, I don't even bother to filter them out because "IDE
> > problems" are not at all unique - sooner or later I expect I'll run into
> similar
> > ones, and will be glad to remember (or look up) what you've already
> learned and
> > documented.
> >
> > Personally, I think it's very ballsy and admirable of you to be willing to
> > discuss your problems and mistakes in public. If the volume of traffic is
> a real
> > issue, we ought to direct the exclusionary attitudes toward the juvenile
> "flame
> > wars" over languages and OS's which are blatantly off-topic (and totally
> > uninformative) - there are lots of alternate existing forums for that
> activity.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> > Dan B Moyer wrote:
> >
> > > Bernie,
> > >
> > > I'm really conflicted on this issue. You, and Jiri (and probably
> Wolfgang?)
> > > (and possibly a substantial number of others?) would apparently like to
> see
> > > much fewer posts here relating to the *details* of the development of
> > > Windows stuff.
> > >
> > > I have two concerns about this:
> > >
> > > 1. I can see your point, *and* I (also) don't want to piss off some of
> the
> > > best programmers on the list, both because it's just not my
> style/nature,
> > > and because I am, to be painfully honest, not very good at programming &
> > > need all the help I can get (& pissing off the best obviously isn't a
> good
> > > way to go about getting that help); so with these in mind, I would be
> > > inclined to simply take your advice, and refrain from posting questions
> /
> > > bug reports / suggestions about the development of the IDE and Win32Lib
> > > *here*, and send such privately to the relevant developer(s);
> > >
> > > 2. However, a number of factors suggest otherwise:
> > > a) Judith and I have both received private mail *requesting* keeping
> the
> > > IDE design *details* public, so that others can both *follow* the
> direction
> > > of its design, and offer comments relating to *guiding* that direction;
> > > b) some on the list have indicated that they *appreciate* seeing the
> > > detail of the development of the IDE, because it shows them that it's
> being
> > > worked on seriously ("...Judith sounds like she's picking at every damn
> > > thing, which is very good to see someone beating away at it.");
> > > c) when the details of the development of the IDE (or any other
> project)
> > > are public, problems which come up may be read by a wider audience, and
> > > *solutions* offered from that wider audience which might not have
> occurred
> > > (or occurred as quickly) to the coder themselve(s), which is a good
> thing,
> > > and not outside the fundamental purpose of the list.
> > >
> > > The above two concerns seem to me to be entirely (and equally) valid; my
> > > support for the suggestion to separate the list was just an effort to
> > > attempt to reconcile *both* of them. I would welcome any better
> suggestion
> > > for reconciling *both* concerns, or arguments which negate my second
> > > concern.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > (who wants to do the right thing)
> > >
> > > P.S.
> > > sent to the list instead of private due to concern 2c
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Bernie" <xotron at PCOM.NET>
> > > To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:54 AM
> > > Subject: Re: POLL: Split the List?
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:37 +0930, Mark Brown <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Hi Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >I vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I also vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> > > >
> > > > When david was working on the win32lib he didn't post to the list
> > > > every time he change a line of code or came up with a different way
> > > > of displaying a control. I am sure that david used a lot of private
> > > > e-mail to design the win32lib and did not fill the list with
> unnessary
> > > > details.
> > > >
> > > > A another list is not necessary, only send your details to the
> > > developers
> > > > of win32lib by private e-mail so the new users and old users can use
> > > > the list to ask for help, and discuss other general topics including
> > > > windows.
> > > >
> > > > Bernie
5. [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
Oh, Kat,
No problem! <laughing> I took that, not as a physical attribute, but an
attitudinal characteristic.
Judith
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:19:15 -0500, Kat <gertie at PELL.NET> wrote:
>On 13 Oct 2000, at 19:08, Ben Fosberg wrote:
>
>
>> Personally, I think it's very ballsy and admirable of you to be willing
to
>> discuss your problems and mistakes in public.
>
>Oh? Judith ...... errrrr,, hmmmm,,, nevermind,, i guess....
>
>
>Kat
6. Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 03:12:18 -0500, Ben Fosberg <BenFosberg at ATT.NET> wrote:
>I certainly didn't mean to slight Judith - she's clearly putting in much
>time
>and effort, and I find her efforts (as well as yours) very beneficial. But
>your
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
> etc.
This post is an example of your posts that I am complaining about.
This post was 180 lines long and taught no one a single thing about
Euphoria.
Bernie
