Jim Henderson wrote:
> That maybe that implementation was sub-optimal.  I personally think it's
> foolish to think that something can *never* be accomplished, if everyone
> thought that way, we wouldn't have technology to the state it's in now.

You totally miss  the point: The limits are not just technological, they 
have serious design and more important usability implications.  And unless 
the whole world suddenly moves to a single operating system and that 
operating system gets a compiler the average user can use without knowing 
_anything_, the technology you have does not matter.

> Well, that's your opinion.

No, it is a previously stated official opinion of the whole team.

> amount of discussion this has generated.  Personally, I find it a very
> interesting bit of cognitive dissonance to be closed-minded about
> something relating to what is for all intents and purposes an open-source
> project.

You are mistaken.  It is simply that the "solution" proposed here not only 
(as pointed out numerous times by others) has no real use, it is also simply 
the completely wrong way to go, and everybody except a small handful of 
people have recognised this.

That is also why nobody after the many other discussions about the same 
topic implemented it.  Eventually everybody will realise it, but sadly it 
tends to generate endless discussions as people who simply do not know what 
they are taking about discuss it.  As soon as those who want to learn look 
into the structure of a ray-tracer, they realise the same an are never read 
from again (at least about that topic).

So it is not about being "closed-minded", it is about having the same 
pointless discussions coming up every half year or so, and having a 50+ or 
post long thread about them.

	Thorsten

Post a reply to this message