awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (12/01/89)
Tim--Shame on you for posting ad hominem attacks. If you must attack Paul's behavior, please don't villify him as an individual. I'm constantly re-amazed at the power of usenet--by putting up with a little fluff (and perhaps some bluster) I can feel connected to people doing similar work around the world. You're one of a handful of real experts offering this feast of information, but I don't think you realize how much it can hurt to be publicly attacked on comp.sys.mac.programmer. It's not like a broadcast attack; it's direct mail to specifically the people whose professional respect matters the most. Paul--Take the hint. Tim is completely right that your job is public relations whenever you're on this net. Apple promulgates standards; the developer community makes them happen because we believe in standards and we agree that the particular ones Apple pushes are acceptable. A lot of "standard" practices came from people like Tim, not Apple. The charge is that you believe that a harsh drill sergeant approach can force standards upon unwilling developers--say it ain't so, Paul. If you explain the standards, you have a chance of selling them to us--yelling doesn't work. I'm sorry about the frustration, but I think it goes with the territory. /alastair/
chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) (12/01/89)
In article <309@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: > Paul--Take the hint. Tim is completely right that your job is public > relations whenever you're on this net. Apple promulgates standards; the > developer community makes them happen because we believe in standards and > we agree that the particular ones Apple pushes are acceptable. A lot of > "standard" practices came from people like Tim, not Apple. The charge > is that you believe that a harsh drill sergeant approach can force > standards upon unwilling developers--say it ain't so, Paul. If you > explain the standards, you have a chance of selling them to us--yelling > doesn't work. I'm sorry about the frustration, but I think it goes with > the territory. Ok, Alastair: it ain't so. :-) Seriously, the point that I was trying to make (albeit the wrong way) was that I felt that the technical rationale behind the discussion HAD been made clear several times, both in Tech Notes and in this forum, by a number of people--myself and Larry Rosenstein, primarily. It seems at this point that a lot of people either hadn't seen or hadn't understood that rationale, so it's been worth outlining it again, which I have done in recent posts. I hope it's been clear enough to be helpful. In particular, I've been very gratified lately to have heard (via mail) from some folks who had been tail patching who are VERY interested in alternative approaches, and in at least one case we've been able to find a workaround that doesn't require trap patching at all. That's the good part of what I do--when I'm able to help someone do something in a better way than it might have been done otherwise. Thanks for the comments! __________________________________________________________________________ Just because I work for Apple Computer, Inc. doesn't mean that they believe what I believe or vice-versa. __________________________________________________________________________ C++ -- The language in which only friends can access your private members. __________________________________________________________________________