Re: Flattened GNUstep structure?

[Dan Pascu]

On 12 Jan, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
>> > The major feature of GNUstep make is, that you can store binaries for
>> > multiple platforms while NeXTstep only stored multiple binaries for a
>> 
>> How does this help an end user? 
> 
> What "end  user"? 

Jim, Joe, ... I haven't thought of anyone in particular.

> 
> If  you ask  for the  secretary  that will  have to  use some  GNUstep
> groupware for her  manager, it won't help her and  she won't care. Her
> manager less.

Silly me. I forgot that only "power users" use software and computers.

> Asking  for a  flatten directory  structure  here is  like asking  for
> binary code being optimized for a specific L2 cache size. Nobody care,

Huh?
.....
silence
.....

Why does this subject piss you so much?

> Asking for flattening GNUstep implementation details is like asking to
> flatten the structure of elf files:

I find your examples and analogies a bit too exaggerated to say the
least.
Again, why is this subject driving you so mad?

Now before you load your "convincing gun tm" again, let me state this:
1. I never argued in favor of flattened or deep. I just asked a question
to better understand some things. And some kind person already managed
to get that answered without such funny examples that I don't think will
convince anyone why deep is better (they only convinced me that you got
very pissed by anyone who asked for flattened).
2. At this point I do not care which decision is taken, and what will
be made default.


-- 
Dan