On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Uriel <lost.gob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:56 PM, David Leimbach<leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:20 AM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> > > wrote: > >> > >> > I could be wrong, but I feel like you're not really interested in > >> > entertaining that this idea could be useful, but more interested in > >> > shooting > >> > it down [...] > >> > >> remember, if a guy says to the king, hey you're fly's undone, > >> we send that guy to the stockades for a week. meanwhile > >> the king's fly remains undone. > >> > >> since the raison d'etre of blocks is ease of programming, > >> i would think it would follow that it should be uniformly > >> easier across the board. if there are big exceptions to this > >> (like extra locking), i would think the feature would earn > >> a fail. > >> > > > > I am totally agreeing with you so far on all points you've just made. > And I > > think that's why Apple is seeking feedback. > > Here is some feedback for Apple: Fire your whole software and > programming division, they are making the GNU and Gnome crack monkeys > look sane, competent and responsible. > > uriel > > > Why am I not surprised that this is your reaction? At least you're consistent :-)
