[CoreTeam]Re: [DotGNU]Re: [Mono-list] Mono/dotGNU Love-In
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:38:25 -0700
At 02:47 PM 8/16/01 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 02:34:03PM +0100, Martin Coxall wrote:
> > I think that's what Rhys Weatherley thought. It seems that Mono hackers
> > other ideas.
>And there was me thinking I was a mono hacker.
> > The idea here is to reduce duplicated effort
>I thought the idea was to come up with an open source C# library.
>See, you're assuming the duplicated effort is by definition Bad, and
>therefore we shouldn't do it. This is, unfortunately, a flawed argument,
>because the assumption isn't provable; it's especially flawed given that
>we have two open source projects that can freely borrow from each other,
>assuming pride doesn't get in the way. What you call duplication of
>effort, I call diversity: it's why we've got more than one editor, more
>than one Unix kernel, more than one mail user agent, more than one mail
>transfer agent. Diversity is our strength. Think about it.
>Competition is *useful*. A lack of competition in the software world
>leads to... well, you know full well what it leads to.
I'm inclined to agree about competition, however, you have to understand
that there are side-effects to everything. Having two libraries that are
meant to achieve the same exact goal (compliance with the ECMA C# standard)
could do some very bad things for development on our mutual C#
platforms. Granted, most of this work could be managed and solutions can
come to be, but having two projects which do the exact same thing when one
with a larger developer count is possible - having one would simply be better.
Do what you want with the rest of mono, but I think that sharing the burden
of the library may have some serious advantages.