One might say the same thing about 'sendmail', and have it be a) completely true, b) completely understandable (if I'm reading into your comment correctly).
That being, "if they understood 'make' they either wouldn't have to write a replacement (since there's nothing wrong with make, if you only understand it), or they wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, poorly." The implication is that make (like sendmail), while very powerful, is rather confusing and difficult to use well, and was written under constraints that don't exist anymore (memory, CPU, etc.)
Of course, I'm probably completely wrong, and I know I'm not expressing my thoughts clearly. :-) Though I know enough about sendmail to both be able to use it, and hate it will a passion. So I stand by that part of my judgement.
Yes, in that I agree, when someone doesn't understand something, they do tend to reinvent it (and often, poorly). It's funny you picked on sendmail, because I've always considered m4 a perfect example of this, and later packaging of sendmail relies heavily on m4.
And, certainly, there's a bit of communication at fault here. How many of the people who don't understand xyz (make, m4, what have you), could indeed understand it if only the documentation was better?
But also, No, in that make was never the half-assed do-everything ill-designed bug-infested security nightmare that sendmail was year after year after year after... and, keep in mind, I cut my sendmail teeth back on version 5.65 (pre IDA). Elvis only knows how many MORE security holes I missed out on.
My point is, I tend to agree with you, but picking sendmail as your example is not helping... ;-)
Comments 8
That being, "if they understood 'make' they either wouldn't have to write a replacement (since there's nothing wrong with make, if you only understand it), or they wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, poorly." The implication is that make (like sendmail), while very powerful, is rather confusing and difficult to use well, and was written under constraints that don't exist anymore (memory, CPU, etc.)
Of course, I'm probably completely wrong, and I know I'm not expressing my thoughts clearly. :-) Though I know enough about sendmail to both be able to use it, and hate it will a passion. So I stand by that part of my judgement.
Reply
Yes, in that I agree, when someone doesn't understand something, they do tend to reinvent it (and often, poorly). It's funny you picked on sendmail, because I've always considered m4 a perfect example of this, and later packaging of sendmail relies heavily on m4.
And, certainly, there's a bit of communication at fault here. How many of the people who don't understand xyz (make, m4, what have you), could indeed understand it if only the documentation was better?
But also, No, in that make was never the half-assed do-everything ill-designed bug-infested security nightmare that sendmail was year after year after year after... and, keep in mind, I cut my sendmail teeth back on version 5.65 (pre IDA). Elvis only knows how many MORE security holes I missed out on.
My point is, I tend to agree with you, but picking sendmail as your example is not helping... ;-)
See you two at Gaby's next week, I hope?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now they know, and knowing is half the battle....
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment