[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RE: COMPILE-SYSTEM,AGAIN
- To: SLUG@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- Subject: RE: RE: COMPILE-SYSTEM,AGAIN
- From: NCRAMER@G.BBN.COM
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 88 01:15:00 EDT
- Illegal-object: Bad Message-ID value found by ZMailer on neat.ai.toronto.edu: <[G.BBN.COM](?illegal end of message identification?) 22-Jul-88 01:15:11.NCRAMER> ;
- Sender: NCRAMER@G.BBN.COM
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 10:52 EDT
> From: Scott McKay <SWM@SAPSUCKER.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Subject: Re: COMPILE-SYSTEM, AGAIN
> Date: 12 Jul 1988 00:08-EDT
> From: NCRAMER@G.BBN.COM
> ..... But in the general case, given that some
> behavior is what most users want (and for that matter expect),
> why isn't the correct response to, at the very least, have a toggle?
> Because such toggles invite abuse. I don't plan to implement such a
> toggle, since "aggregate systems" (which I mentioned in two other
> messages) completely solve this problem in a more modular way.
> I realize that this sounds arrogant, but just because some users (not
> "most users", as you claim) "want" a certain behavior is not sufficient
> justification for doing it.
To the specific --and increasingly uninteresting question-- of who
wants COMPILE-SYSTEM to do what all I can say is that _every_ time I've
seen a user run up against the current behaviour it's been complained
about. I'm yet to hear any of them say "Whew, it's a good thing
Symbolics understands what consitutes 'abuse' [to use your term] of my
system better than I do. Thank god they were there to protect me from
[BTW these are by definition not naive, novice users; it is only beyond
a certain level of sophistication that, if they use DEFSYSTEM at all,
users use it for other than the serial loading of files. And while
I'm willing to admit that there are users who really do not expect --or
even want-- it to act in the proposed way, I'm willing to bet my left
mouse button that the suggestion for a toggle would be met with near
To the more general (and the real) question at hand: what can I say?
Yes, it does sound arrogant and more than a little so. It would be
interesting to know what _does_ constitute "sufficient justification"
for the inclusion of a feature in a product when the desire for it by
the knowledgable users and customers of the system does not.