Re: [DotGNU]extension APIs (was Re: [Website]Preparing for dotgnu meet-a-thon)

[S11001001]

James Mc Parlane wrote:
> The flip side of this argument is, why replicate what already works, is
> maintained by other equally dedicated groups, and would arguably run much(?)
> faster until dot.gnu has JIT compiler capabilities on par with GCC's
> optomiser.

Speed isn't as important as portability or ease of installation. If one 
doesn't have some of these libraries....it's not good to tell every user 
"you must have x, y, z libraries installed for this app to work." A "you 
must have DotGNU SEE and Portable .NET installed (standard, right?)" 
would be much better.

> I think that having pure pnetlib implementations would be a good thing.. but
> I also think that being able to say.. look.. dot.gnu its here.. its now..
> and its based on libs that are already out there and running on production
> servers.

Yes, but Linux (the kernel) is running on production servers, and so is 
Windows NT. I came to DotGNU because I find the traditional development 
environment inadequate; I believe the reason it's here is because the 
production server is inadequate and could use a sprucing-up, DotGNU style.

I agree that it's a trade-off either way.

--
Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org

My views about copyright take an hour to expound, but one general
principle applies: it cannot justify denying the public important
freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict
between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
Property rights are meant to advance human well-being, not as an
excuse to disregard it.
        -- RMS, "The GNU GPL and the American Way"