Tango quibbles - please write tickets so we can track them

[Alexander Panek]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 9/17/07, Sean Kelly <sean at f4.ca> wrote:
>> A more accurate analogy still, however, is to compare a software library
>> to a tool.  In the construction trades I believe you'll find that
>> complex tools are often customized by the user and craftsmen often even
>> submit feedback to tool designers in an attempt to improve the
>> suitability of tools for the work involved.  Spare time typically isn't
>> an issue because the time spent is a part of work, not leisure.  In
>> fact, some of Tango's users are actually involved in commercial
>> projects.  I only wish I had the time to respond to their requests and
>> bug reports that I would if maintaining Tango were my job.  Truth be
>> told, Tango is already more popular than I expected it would be.
> 
> I disagree, because in this instance, nobody asked me for feedback.
> Instead, Kris asked me to *COMMIT MY SPARE TIME* and *HELP WITH THE
> DOCUMENTATION*. That's what I said no to. I did not say no to giving
> feedback.
> 
> If you want to make the tool analogy, I'm not even using the damn
> tool! Instead, I looked at it, said "I don't think I'll be using it",
> and then the tool designer said "So help me improve it a bit", so I
> said "I ain't got time, mate, sorry". End of analogy.
> 
> If you guys are trying to make me feel guilty about this, it's not
> going to work. If you don't like my analogies - fine! But for crying
> out loud do we really have to spend several zillion posts trying to
> argue about whether or not the analogy works? I was just trying to
> explain why I said no, that's all. I didn't realise doing so was going
> to cause so much grief.

Well, actually you have been ranting about Tango (i.e.: Tango developers 
not following the D Style Guide, not trying to be anyhow compatible with 
Phobos and especially your phrase about the development of Tango: "I 
wish they hadn't done that"). You didn't quite make a valid point why 
you don't like Tango (besides the style, which has its [well thought 
through] reason). That's ok, but giving constructive critique would have 
been a better way to spend time - as opposed to ranting -, which is the 
whole point of this discussion, I think.