> > Well... What "it"? Implementing these principles in software design? It
> > can be done, if my current pet project, the Quill, is any indication.
> Good, then show us how by making your own patch when 3.5 comes out and you
> can get your hands on the source-code, OK?

Are you sure it even could be done as a patch? Implementing these
features is possible... implementing them as "patch" would be quite
difficult. :)
 
> > It seems that this is the most frequent misunderstanding so far:
> > thinking that I was complaining on features.
 
> If everybody understood what you wrote as such, then it's your own fault for
> badly wording things. For example, this "we" can be taken as being quite
> haughty on your part, and might be seen as implying "Behold, I am the wise
> one, do what I say, because it is better than your meager toilings of the
> past". Or something to that effect. :)

I have little control over what others "might see" - it's their own
choice. What I wrote, I wrote. If it's dismissed only because someone
thought it was "haughty" - okay.

I can only repeat that "I am the wise one" bullshit was not in my
intentions.
 
> > Wouldn't a lubricated machine
> > run better than dry gears?
> Not if the dry gears were coated with teflon or something. ;)

It's like supplying an automobile engine with all the electronic
ignition and extra valves and such - but you still are stuch with the
same old and awkward piston-and-crankshaft architecture, if you allow me
a metaphor...

Post a reply to this message