Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

>> Please reduce a tiny bit your expression of the "POV-code-is-the-best-
>> code-in-the-world-and-all-other-programs-are-full-of-bugs-or-trivial"
>> theoreme.
> 
> I didn't say that at all.  And I definitely never said such a thing to the
> contrary.
> 
You did it and are doing it right here again. 
I just made an exaggeration to make the point obvious. 

> On the other hand, how old is the Mozilla code base, or the Linux kernel?
> The POV-Ray code dates back to the mid 1980s.  And it has not required a
> rewrite since.  Yet, the two projects mentioned have had their whole
> design turned over how many times in just the last five years?
> 
[I won't feed the trolls.]

>> From those bugs I have found myself in POV code, the code is not as
>> high-quality as you consider it to be. I am really sorry to say that
>> but sometimes it is healthy to face truth.
> 
> Read my other post.  It is very easy to complain about bugs and then to do
> nothing about them.  Of course, you just want to do the fun part, but hey,
> guess what, everybody want to do just that.  The difference between a
> POV-Team member (or everybody with source code access) and the average
> patch writer is that a POV-Team member takes the responsibility of a
> feature's bugs getting fixed and to make it bug free eventually.
>
(1) I did something against all bugs I found in POVRay where I could. 
    I remember only the parametric object bug and I looked into it a 
    month ago and sill do not know what to do about it. 
(2) You should read it like that: all the closed source & design 
    effords did not prevent the code from being as good as you would 
    like to have it. So...
 
> Sure, Mozilla never crashing, not consuming a gigabyte of memory and
> taking
> an hour to start up the first time.  Even Konqueror crashes if fed with
> the
> "right" page.  At least my "version" of it does.  And I tend to use IE 5.2
> to view pages in such cases.  Yet, compare Konqueror to Mozilla.  The
> first one is well structured with a simple yet powerful and considerate
> design, the later is a huge waste of compilation time with *much* more
> code to do
> the same thing.  Code quality is more than just not crashing.  In fact,
> crashing bugs are the easiest to find and solve.  The design on the other
> hand...
> 
[I won't feed the trolls here. Just a statement: I had more konqui 
crashes than mozilla crashes. Maybe because I am using beta versions 
from time to time.]

> Ah, yes, the other two high-profile projects showing clear signs of
> forking
> and serious code quality problems.  Of course, monolithic kernels are such
> a great idea, so they flaw must be elsewhere than in the fool who
> conceived it.
> 
[I don't feed the trolls here. And I would have liked you for not 
doing so as well.]

> CVS, sure.  Ever looked into the CVS source code?  
>
Yes, because it had some trouble with symlinks. 
And after doing so I thought one should make a complete re-write 
because the design is flawed. 
Then I wondered why so many people are using it. 

Wolfgang

Post a reply to this message