Andrew Clinton <ajc### [at] uwaterlooca> wrote:
> > Then you fundamentally misunderstood the point we always made: We will
> > not discuss the design in public, and we do not endorse design
> > discussions in public either...

> I'm really sorry to hear that.  This opinion seems so unusual for an open
> source project that I'm wondering if all the team members feel the same
> way.

  What would be the point of having tons of people throwing random thoughts
and usually just creating endless flamewars about tiny details of the new
design?

  There's a saying at least in Finnish (which I don't know if exists in
English) about several cooks cooking the same soup. It tries to indicate
that usually when something needs to be designed, the more designers there
are, the worse the result. The result just ends up being a chaotic mess
of different, usually inconsistent parts which are hard to maintain.
  It's often a better idea to have one or at most two experts who are
responsible of the main design.

  If the design of pov4 would be based on public discussion, most of the
input would be of the type "why don't we make it in Java" and "let's make
the SDL based on XML" and attrocities like that, and there would simply
be endless flamewars with people advocating something and other people
opposing it. And most of these opinions would be made by people with no
experience whatsoever on the design and implementation of big projects.
It would serve no-one.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message