Re: Naming _another_ lacking puzzle piece

[David Kastrup]

Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:07 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Janek Warchoł <address@hidden> writes:
>>> would it hurt us really much to have multiple overrides
>>> "accumulate cruft"?  I suppose that in real-life situation there won't
>>> be that much cruft accumulated - but i might be completely wrong.
>>
>> \voiceTwo \voiceOne \oneVoice
>>
>> Would you expect that after this sequence, the state is like just after
>> \voiceTwo?
>
> Good point.
>
>>> In other words, we have \override, \tweak, \set, \revert, \unset,
>>> \undo, \single (and maybe more).  It's getting confusing, at least for
>>> me.  I'd prefer to decrease the number of such functions, not increase
>>> them (without deleting functionality, of course).
>>
>> You can't call functionality without an interface.  A prefix like
>> \temporary is better than a full new interface.
>>
>> It's really totally unrewarding to do this kind of work.  Instead of
>> "Great, finally we get a tool for doing x in a straightforward way",
>> everybody is always hollering "oh no, not another tool.  Can't we just
>> live with the deficient state?"
>>
>> Have you ever tried working with a combined hammer, tongs, screwdriver,
>> drill multi-tool?  If you have, you'd value a clean, sorted toolbox with
>> simple and separate tools that all do just one job, and do it well.
>>
>> Again: if you don't _care_ about breaking things, then _don't_ learn how
>> to avoid it, and you will be just fine.
>>
>> Me, I am annoyed at broken things.  So I want to have the tools
>> available that help me deal with that.  But people are free to ignore
>> that offer.
>
> David, from your reaction i deduce that you felt attacked by me.

No.  I am just pissed at the people clamoring for more ignorance, more
bugs, and less control.  Nobody keeps them from staying ignorant and not
taking control.  It is their own business, and they are welcome to it,
it remains a perfectly available and feasible option, but that does not
mean that everybody else needs to be forced to do the same, and it is
not like they suffer immensely when the tools they don't want to hear
about get used to remove bugs they don't want to be bothered with.

People have all the right to their personal choices, but that does not
mean that each choice of them makes me equally enthusiastic.

> I'm sorry as this wasn't my intent.  I want to have this situation
> explained as soon as possible.

Janek, with all due respect: I just don't have the time and energy to
talk two hours on the phone whenever something happens to annoy me.  I
get little enough done as it is, and being kept away from actually
useful work by repeating what I already wrote makes things more rather
than less frustrating.

-- 
David Kastrup