[rfc-i] Containment considered harmful
jhildebr at cisco.com
Sat May 26 23:46:55 PDT 2012
On 5/26/12 11:28 PM, "Joe Touch" <touch at isi.edu> wrote:
>> I think there are several of us that believe that it's roughly similar cost
>> to the toolchain to have more information rather than less, and as such, we
>> may as well have more information. There are several ways that I want to
>> use that information that you don't care about - fine. But if it costs the
>> same, why not?
> I've shown that it isn't the same cost.
You may have shown that it's not the same cost for folks that use outdated
tools, or who might not have the skill sets required to write either flavor
of the code.
I don't think you've shown that there's a big difference in cost for a
>>> This is NOT a contest about "how much information can we preserve". Every
>>> type of information that you add to the list of preserved info LIMITS the
>>> solution space here.
>> Yup. That's intentional.
> OK, so you're clearly indicating then why containment is a bad idea. There is
> no reason to limit the solution space solely to preserve some potential future
So now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth? Do you find that this
sort of rhetorical trick wins you arguments? If so, I'm ashamed of the
people that allow you to do that to them.
>>> ³Perfection is achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add,
>>> when there is nothing left to take away² Antoine de Saint-Exupery
>> "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein
> I'd really like you to explain how preserving all this structure for some
> undefined future need is "as simple as possible".
It's not. It's the "not simpler" part.
More information about the rfc-interest