> If you can't write your own green threading library, you are either lazy or a parasite. Please let's be reasonable about what is worth rewriting and what is not.
I was mocking your statement, in case you missed it. I don't think that if you don't write cross platform code you are lazy -- especially not high performance code that derives some of its performance from platform specific features!
And no one needs to rewrite anything! Just use your own fork with your PATCHES. Read my lips again: NO REWRITE NEEDED!
> This attitude is why so many man-hours are lost in the community, and why so many pointless forks exist.
For some reason, you believe the community owes you something. And what exactly are those "so many pointless forks that exist"? GCC has had 5 significant forks through its life, non of them pointless.
> Come now, do you honestly believe this is a more efficient/sound/useful solution than trying to get antirez to just add support in mainline Redis (without even having to start from scratch)?
Of course it is efficient for parasites like you when antirez spends the time -- especially since you don't care about development efficiency and speed on Linux which are essentially guaranteed to be harmed, at least in the short term and possibly for a long time to come.
The only question is: why should antirez care?
> Care to elaborate? I'm not fluent in "tired cliche".
SPEND TIME (which translates to SPEND YOUR INCOME which translates to SPEND MONEY) MAINTAINING A WINDOWS FORK, TO ANTIREZ STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE ON LINUX AND CLEANLINESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, and if you manage to achieve that, I can almost guarantee he'll merge it in. The problem is, it might not actually be doable -- but TALKING ABOUT IT IS CHEAP FOR YOU, so that's what you do -- which is what others tend to call BULLSHIT. Is this elaboration enough?
> My team and I do a lot of cross-platform C code, and this would've made our lives a lot easier.
Translation: We would have gotten something for nothing.
Question: Does your team release any of its code? If so, can I have a look? If not, why not -- and why do you feel entitled to someone else's source code?
> Then again, if people complained (as I did here!) perhaps things may have gone better?
Oh, you are so naive. The only reason the posix subsystem existed in the first place was so that NT would be eligible to compete in Government tenders (predominantly, but not only, US). It was always a 3rd class citizen, hardly supported or usable, although it was very successful in the business sense of letting MS compete in those tenders.
Microsoft only fixed browser standard compliance (and not fully) when they realized they're starting to lose the browser war again. That's 10 years of very vocal complaints that went unheard, and for a very simple reason: It conflicts with their lock-in strategy. Same thing about the posix extensions.
You might be a very good developer for all I know, but you really fail in understanding how the world works.
Translation: We would have gotten something for nothing.
Actually, we would've been able to focus on mainline development instead of having to write some supporting libs. That said, having written that code, we now are going to share it with the rest of the world, so they don't have to waste time doing what we did. If you'd like to leave an email address here, I'll cheerfully send you notice of our release personally.
Question: Does your team release any of its code? If so, can I have a look? If not, why not -- and why do you feel entitled to someone else's source code?
We're releasing a cross-platform low-level OS, threading, and math library for C under either the WTFPL or BSD license around New Years. This library will have a public bug tracker, open source, and excellent documentation for usage and code commenting as well overall package design so that others may extend it easily if they wish.
~
Sir or madam, call me whatever you wish, but at least be accurate. I am no parasite.
I was mocking your statement, in case you missed it. I don't think that if you don't write cross platform code you are lazy -- especially not high performance code that derives some of its performance from platform specific features!
And no one needs to rewrite anything! Just use your own fork with your PATCHES. Read my lips again: NO REWRITE NEEDED!
> This attitude is why so many man-hours are lost in the community, and why so many pointless forks exist.
For some reason, you believe the community owes you something. And what exactly are those "so many pointless forks that exist"? GCC has had 5 significant forks through its life, non of them pointless.
> Come now, do you honestly believe this is a more efficient/sound/useful solution than trying to get antirez to just add support in mainline Redis (without even having to start from scratch)?
Of course it is efficient for parasites like you when antirez spends the time -- especially since you don't care about development efficiency and speed on Linux which are essentially guaranteed to be harmed, at least in the short term and possibly for a long time to come.
The only question is: why should antirez care?
> Care to elaborate? I'm not fluent in "tired cliche".
SPEND TIME (which translates to SPEND YOUR INCOME which translates to SPEND MONEY) MAINTAINING A WINDOWS FORK, TO ANTIREZ STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE ON LINUX AND CLEANLINESS OF IMPLEMENTATION, and if you manage to achieve that, I can almost guarantee he'll merge it in. The problem is, it might not actually be doable -- but TALKING ABOUT IT IS CHEAP FOR YOU, so that's what you do -- which is what others tend to call BULLSHIT. Is this elaboration enough?
> My team and I do a lot of cross-platform C code, and this would've made our lives a lot easier.
Translation: We would have gotten something for nothing.
Question: Does your team release any of its code? If so, can I have a look? If not, why not -- and why do you feel entitled to someone else's source code?
> Then again, if people complained (as I did here!) perhaps things may have gone better?
Oh, you are so naive. The only reason the posix subsystem existed in the first place was so that NT would be eligible to compete in Government tenders (predominantly, but not only, US). It was always a 3rd class citizen, hardly supported or usable, although it was very successful in the business sense of letting MS compete in those tenders.
Microsoft only fixed browser standard compliance (and not fully) when they realized they're starting to lose the browser war again. That's 10 years of very vocal complaints that went unheard, and for a very simple reason: It conflicts with their lock-in strategy. Same thing about the posix extensions.
You might be a very good developer for all I know, but you really fail in understanding how the world works.