It makes me sick!

[Joakim via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 22:32:27 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote:
> On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:35:01 UTC, Anonymouse wrote:
>> On Friday, 28 July 2017 at 21:23:22 UTC, FoxyBrown wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> I'm sorry if I'm not expressing it in a way that agrees with 
>> you but you're looking at the wrong side of the example. 
>> You're pasting one set of files onto another and expect the 
>> software to somehow know to ignore some of them.
>
> YES! EXACTLY! I AM EXPECTING THE SOFTWARE, WHICH IS WHAT THE 
> PROGRAMMER CREATED AND HANDLES THE FILES TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT 
> THE HELL IT IS DOING!
>
> I'm sorry if that is too complex to understand.
>
> If the software has some build in design that makes it use 
> arbitrary files in a specific way like it does with 
> std.datetime, then it should have sanity checks.
>
> After all, who the hell knows more about dmd using std.datetime 
> and how it uses it and such, the end user or the programmer of 
> dmd?
>
> You are expecting the end user, who generally knows very little 
> to do the dirty work instead of having the programmer who is 
> suppose to know what the fuck is going on to add sanity checks, 
> useful error messages, etc.
>
> Ali suggested a very reasonable solution that would have solved 
> this problem and you guys are against it and offer no solution 
> to the issue.
>
> It all boils down to laziness. Too lazy to spend the time to 
> add code that makes dmd more robust. Simple as that.
>
> It's not that it can't be done, like you bone-heads are 
> claiming, but that you simply don't want to do it.
>
> Another very simple solution:
>
> Before the zip file is generated, a listing of all the files in 
> the dmd installation that are used(which should be all of them) 
> is taken. This file then is parsed by dmd and only those files 
> in the dmd dir that are in the list are used. This would also 
> have avoided the issue and future issues. Any stale files in 
> the dir would simply be ignored.
>
> But, again, too much work. Keep making the end users deal with 
> these problems instead of doing your due diligence. That we, we 
> have something to waste our time with in these forums instead 
> of real problems.

What you are suggesting is blatantly idiotic.  No software ever 
made supports simply installing on top of an old installation 
from a compressed zip or tar file.  If you need hand-holding, the 
installer will wipe the old install before unpacking the new 
install for you.  The zip file is for people who know what they 
are doing, such as not unpacking on top of the old install.  You 
should just use the installer from now on, not the zip file, if 
you can't be bothered to remove the old install first.