Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review (Chad Nelson)

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review (Chad Nelson)
From: Chad Nelson (chad.thecomfychair_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-07 13:03:44

On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 11:37:24 -0500
"Stewart, Robert" <Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>> I'm confident to the point of arrogance. It's a personality flaw
>> that I know and detest in myself, and I've worked for years to mute
>> it. I'm also by far the best programmer that I'd ever met before I
>> joined this list, which exacerbates the problem greatly because I've
>> never before had any reason to be humble in that area.
>
> I understand the big fish in a small pond problem.  Boost can be
> amazingly humbling in that regard.

Yeah, I've noticed. ;-)

>> To make things worse, XInt is the product of not just passion,
>> but obsession. No completely sane human works on something
>> like that for twelve or more hours a day, seven days a week,
>> for months on end. There were several factors that contributed
>> to that, but they're irrelevant.
>
> I do hope you can regain some perspective on XInt versus other parts
> of your life!

Once I was able to call it ready, I recovered.

>> So when I joined this list and offered XInt, I subconsciously
>> expected to be welcomed with open arms and lauded for my
>> contribution. Instead, the masterpiece I was so proud of was
>> torn apart and left in a bloody heap. Six times.
>
> You learned the hard way just how small your pond had been.

Not for the first time, but it was the first time in a very long time.

>>> I expected a humbler reaction to the design criticisms given the
>>> number of things those on this list obviously know about modern C++.
>>
>> The people on this list vary in skill, and often even several people
>> who seem equally skilled have given me exactly the opposite advice
>> [...]
>
> That you took someone's (strongly expressed?) opinion as
> "instructions" was clearly a mistake. 

With the benefit of hindsight, yes. I was originally treating the Boost
list members as a single client and trying to satisfy all of the
concerns brought up. I have to say, this group makes a particularly
difficult client. :-) I've dealt with a couple just as bad, but never
with a project I was so emotionally caught up in.

> If they convinced you, then you should stand by the decision.  If
> not, you shouldn't change for their sake. [...]

The hard part is knowing when someone actually has a good idea that I'm
not familiar with, and should be listened to, and when I've got more
experience in the matter at hand and should stand firm.

> [...] Your vision for the library should be paramount.  It is your
> library and you must maintain it.  However, recognizing that you
> don't know everything, you should be remain open to being convinced
> by superior arguments.

When I can recognize them as superior, I am. :-)

> I understand the idea of marketing.  I also understand that what you
> wrote was in some ways inconsistent (see my "staccato" comment),
> overstated (see our "complete" discussion), or misleading (see the
> "fast" discussions).  For example, on the "fast" part, if you had
> said that portability was your first priority, but that speed was a
> close second, you would have gained your point without the negative
> backlash that ensued.

Which is confusing to me, because to my eyes, it's merely a rephrasing
of what's already there. One that fails to convey the enthusiasm I felt
at the time, and still do to a lesser extent.

>> Your saying that my "complete and carefully maintained
>> documentation" comment was excessive stung, regardless of whether it
>> was correct or not. I reacted badly to that. I'm sorry that I did,
>> and I publicly apologize if it offended you.
>
> You didn't offend me and I'm sorry that I phrased it in a way that
> "stung."

You couldn't know how much time, attention, and care went into those
files. If you did, you'd likely have phrased it differently. Regardless,
I overreacted.
-- 
Chad Nelson
Oak Circle Software, Inc.
*
*
*