On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 07:30:43PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 19:11:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> >http://spot.livejournal.com/308370.html
[...]
> He definitely have some good points, but he has enough in there that a _lot_ of people would disagree with on that the list becomes pretty useless as an actual metric IMHO. And his scoring system is going to put most projects into fail territory _very_ quickly.
[...]

A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building it locally)?!

And the Linux kernel would get +30 points of FAIL, since Linus wrote git. :-D

And contrary to his insistence on using GNU make, *I* say that projects that *use* any variant of make ought to get +5 points of FAIL.

Installing into /opt or /usr/local is actually recommended practice according to various Linux standards (e.g., FHS).

It cracks me up that one of the comments hail this list as "objective criteria". Hah.


T

-- 
The best way to destroy a cause is to defend it poorly.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:28:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building it locally)?!

Yes, I do it all the time. I'm often interested in just one small file and don't want to download dozens of megabytes of irrelevant garbage to get to them.

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:41:55PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:28:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building it locally)?!
> 
> Yes, I do it all the time. I'm often interested in just one small file and don't want to download dozens of megabytes of irrelevant garbage to get to them.

I see. So this is one of those things where I do thing differently from everybody else, I guess?  Man, do I feel old... ;-)


T

-- 
Acid falls with the rain; with love comes the pain.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:55:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:41:55PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:28:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building it locally)?!
>> 
>> Yes, I do it all the time. I'm often interested in just one small file and don't want to download dozens of megabytes of irrelevant garbage to get to them.
>
> I see. So this is one of those things where I do thing differently from everybody else, I guess?  Man, do I feel old... ;-)
>
>
> T

Hah yeah, even when I have the source to phobos on my hard drive, I still often opt to just read some random file in github because it takes me fewer clicks to get open.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:55:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:41:55PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:28:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see why having a web viewer for the source control system is so absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building it locally)?!
>> 
>> Yes, I do it all the time. I'm often interested in just one small file and don't want to download dozens of megabytes of irrelevant garbage to get to them.
>
> I see. So this is one of those things where I do thing differently from everybody else, I guess?  Man, do I feel old... ;-)

Well, I hate reading the source online too (much easier to just read it in gvim and be able to use grep to find stuff across files). So, if I'm going to be doing much reading of source, I'm going to download it, but at the same time, if I only have to look at one file and not look deeply, I'll probably look online rather than figuring out how to get the source locally.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 7/28/2015 4:04 PM, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> Hah yeah, even when I have the source to phobos on my hard drive, I still often
> opt to just read some random file in github because it takes me fewer clicks to
> get open.

Having it viewable on github also makes it very convenient to embed links to specific source lines.

On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 23:29:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> Having it viewable on github also makes it very convenient to embed links to specific source lines.
Indeed. Also GitHub makes it easy to contribute (at least small fixes), because you can fork, edit and make a pull request all in one place.

BTW, is it worth so much discussion? It's only 5 points :)

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:21:00PM +0000, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:55:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 10:41:55PM +0000, Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>On Tuesday, 28 July 2015 at 22:28:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >>>A lot of his points are highly subjective, e.g., I don't see >why
> >>having a web viewer for the source control system is so >absolutely important that it's worth 5 points of FAIL. Do >people seriously read through source code on a web viewer (as >opposed to, say, git cloning it and looking at it / building >it locally)?!
> >>
> >>Yes, I do it all the time. I'm often interested in just one small file and don't want to download dozens of megabytes of irrelevant garbage to get to them.
> >
> >I see. So this is one of those things where I do thing differently from everybody else, I guess?  Man, do I feel old... ;-)
> 
> Well, I hate reading the source online too (much easier to just read it in gvim and be able to use grep to find stuff across files). So, if I'm going to be doing much reading of source, I'm going to download it, but at the same time, if I only have to look at one file and not look deeply, I'll probably look online rather than figuring out how to get the source locally.
[...]

Hmm. I would've thought things couldn't possibly get easier than `git clone $url; vim $pathname`...

That's one of the nicest thing about git: you aren't bound to a server and you don't have to setup a ton of stuff just to checkout some random project that caught your interest. And you can just `rm -rf` the clone once you're done with it, if you decide that it's not interesting after all.


T

-- 
What do you get if you drop a piano down a mineshaft? A flat minor.

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 15:21:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> git

You don't only do things differently from everybody else, you do them as if nobody else even exists.

On Wednesday, 29 July 2015 at 15:21:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Hmm. I would've thought things couldn't possibly get easier than `git clone $url; vim $pathname`...

`git clone` can take awhile with large repositories, like mono.