Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/07/15/17:22:37
On Jul 15, 2015, at 2:51 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> My point was, there was no need to bring up every single possibility
> in a question specifically about gschem/pcb. Doing so both distracts
> people from answering the original question, and artificially raises
> the bar to solving it. We don't need to solve every problem every
> time.
And again, you demonstrate that despite all of your protests that you understand my point of view, you still don’t get it.
> We *do* need to start solving some of the problems some of the
> time. *If* a solution comes up and *if* it can be used for other
> purposes and *if* you want to do the work to make it more general,
> *that* is the time to bring it up.
It needs *less* work to make it more general in this case. But I can count on you not to see it.
> Throwing "it must be perfect and
> do everything" in people's faces when they suggest things, only makes
> them no longer want to suggest things.
Given that geda-gaf is in a pretty good state, and there are far more ways to screw it up than to make it better, is this so bad?
>
> Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough, and your constant pestering about
> perfection has made you the enemy.
>
You still don’t understand. When have I demanded perfection? Simplicity, yes, Generality, yes. Clean factoring, yes. Perfection, no. Indeed, I have great sympathy for the “Worse is Better” philosophy in software. The nice thing about the toolkit approach is that you can usually work around the inevitable leaks in the abstractions. But short cuts get in the way.
John Doty Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
http://www.noqsi.com/
jpd AT noqsi DOT com
- Raw text -