Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:13:44 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Message-Id:	<3028-Tue18Mar2003091343+0200-eliz@elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to:	<3E762E23.A2F38193@yahoo.com> (message from CBFalconer on Mon, 17
	Mar 2003 15:20:51 -0500)
Subject:	Re: nmalloc revisited
References:	<200303141601 DOT RAA26911 AT lws256 DOT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> <3E721051 DOT 645AA67D AT yahoo DOT com> <3E74B558 DOT 3629CBA9 AT yahoo DOT com> <1438-Sun16Mar2003203300+0200-eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il> <3E74E454 DOT BC734243 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E753E85 DOT 81830981 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E755250 DOT 837B3606 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E75B36C DOT 6327581D AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E75E6E1 DOT A3989CD6 AT yahoo DOT com> <3E7616BC DOT E333FA24 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> <3E762E23 DOT A2F38193 AT yahoo DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:20:51 -0500
> From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> 
> I find DJGPP to be a fundamentally good and reasonably efficient
> system.  I saw a glaring flaw, and rather than bitch incessantly,
> I fixed it with, I believe, sound and clear code.  Apparently very
> few care to even look at the result.

People are busy (well, _I_ am), and your code is highly non-trivial.
malloc is at the core of the library and interfaces with intricate
details of the DPMI environment that is the basis on which DJGPP
stands.  As such, its replacement must be very sound and tested,
especially since you are not a DPMI expert (no offense).  I believe
we've been at that several times before.

People who _do_ have time, _when_ they have time, _are_ looking at
your code and trying to work with it.  Over the months, you've got
quite a few comments and suggestions for changes and improvements.
Some of them were addressed; others remain.

So people do care.

You might get better results if you don't attack existing code and
design so blatantly, though.  E.g., why did you need to put comments
like the following?

> /* FOUL FOUL FOUL FOUL */
> /* This is a most unclean way of implementing the interface */

Do you really believe such an NIH attitude helps to get your code
reviewed in the most objective way?

Personally, I don't even enjoy taking part in this current thread
because I'm apparently required to defend my implementation, however
humble and imperfect, on every turn.  That's no way of treating a
volunteer who wrote that code, tested it, debugged it, and documented
it on his own free time, time taken from my wife, kids, and other
Important Things.

I don't have anything against replacing the result with a better
implementation, but would appreciate it a lot if you spared me the
"FOUL FOUL FOUL" attitude in the process.

- Raw text -