Points of Failure

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:30:43PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 19:11:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >http://spot.livejournal.com/308370.html
[...]
> He definitely have some good points, but he has enough in there that a
> _lot_ of people would disagree with on that the list becomes pretty
> useless as an actual metric IMHO. And his scoring system is going to
> put most projects into fail territory _very_ quickly.
[...]

A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having
a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important
that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through
source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and
looking at it / building it locally)?!

And the Linux kernel would get +30 points of FAIL, since Linus wrote
git. :-D

And contrary to his insistence on using GNU make, *I* say that projects
that *use* any variant of make ought to get +5 points of FAIL.

Installing into /opt or /usr/local is actually recommended practice
according to various Linux standards (e.g., FHS).

It cracks me up that one of the comments hail this list as "objective
criteria". Hah.


T

-- 
The best way to destroy a cause is to defend it poorly.