Re: [crosstool-NG] Design discussion

[Ladislav Michl <ladis at linux-mips dot org>]

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 06:41:12PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 10 April 2009 04:09:42 Ladislav Michl wrote:
> > ...and still is, I just didn't express it clear. If feature FOO depends on
> > BAR, you compile both and link them together. No matter which one gets
> > compiled first. Now when program FOO depends on library BAR you need to
> > compile that library first to let FOO link against it which is something
> > 'plain' kconfing does not handle.
> 
> So you're generating makefile dependencies from the kconfig dependencies...?

Yes.

> > > I'm trying to ask the "Do we really _need_ fins?  What about gas mileage?
> > >  Is lead really _necessary_ in gasoline?" type questions.  Even if
> > > everything (including the stuff I've written) currently gets this sort of
> > > thing wrong, it should still be possible to do _better_...
> >
> > I'm wondering, why you (a computer guys) are always trying to compare
> > software development to automotive industry without having any deeper clue
> > about it.
> 
> I wouldn't call myself an automotive _expert_, but why do you assume I haven't 
> got _any_ deeper clue about the industry?
> 
> Would you like me to explain how an internal combustion engine works?

No, of course. I do expect many people on this list to be able to design
computer program, but only few, if any, to be able to design an internal
combustion engine.  Sure people have _some_ deeper clue about automotive
industry, but I would not assume it is comparable with their computer science
experience. And note, that to make your point such a comparsion was not even
needed, so I would use Occam's razor here and simply drop it.
 
> in touch with my friends in Michigan who are unemployed due to the layoffs at 
> Ford and General Motors?

And this is plain call for flame war. These companies deserve do die, as their
products lack any invention at all. Used them, hated them and would have to
loose the rest of my intellect to even think about acquiring such a crap. I
hope computer industry can do better and yes, bad examples educate better. So,
lets go back to software design, as there we can actually _do_ something better
for the tools many programmers work with.

> > Pretty please leave away those analogies as they are not 
> > completly analogic and do not serve any real purpose.
> 
> Automobiles are the most complicated piece of reasonably mature technology 
> that ordinary individuals use on a daily basis.  You need training and 
> certification to operate them, they have extensive maintenance requirements 
> their users need to be aware of (gas, oil, brake pads), but most people 
> aren't mechanics and aren't expected to be, even though system failures can 
> maim or kill.  Despite that, we take them for granted, expect everybody to 
> learn to use them as a teenager, and lots of families have two.
> 
> If you want to know how people will think about computers once they've been 
> around for 100 years, the automobile is an obvious model because very little 
> else has been _around_ for 100 years.  (The light bulb and the rotary dial 
> telephone started about the same era, but neither were in the same complexity 
> category.  We're not expected to _operate_ either in a nontrivial way.)

Well, that's all true, except this is developers mailing list and as a such
it is not targeted to the user. You might argue that desing principles should
be the same no matter if targeting to user or developer, but I see no point
for such argumentation to the people (software developers) who are doing the
same job for software development as for example people designing shock
absorbers do for automotive. Products of both have no use on its own and need
other engeneers to make them part of something usefull.

And if you really need something to compare, what about washing maschine? It
is simple enough, so people can realize its internals easily, it is long
enough around, it is reliable and it helped to change the society as women
suddenly got a lot of time to invest outside housekeeping ;-)

We are offtopic, indeed, so lets stop it. As I'm happy PTXdist user and I
think its design is in general good, I want others to give it a try and write
down their suggestions. And you did it pretty well, Rob.

Thank you,
	ladis (who will, once time permit, work on cutting down
	prerequisities list and eliminating ./configure && make)

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq