[m-dev.] A not-very-polite rant about "grades" and the build system.

[Matt Giuca]

Apologies if I'm continuing to derail this thread (but I doubt there's any
use having a constructive discussion in reply to this; best to just start a
new thread if you want to actually talk about the build system).

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:21 AM Michael Richter <ttmrichter at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I tried this before.  On 2013-03-24 to be precise.  I wrote a very polite
> critique of the build system along with some proposed solutions for it and
> for the troubles it causes.  It was very politely bike-shedded, then
> ignored.
>

And this exonerates you? You asked politely, and it was considered but not
acted on, so that gives you the right to throw a hurricane tantrum? Christ,
if everyone acted like that in society, we'd be in utter turmoil constantly.

I return to my point about open source communities. Nobody *owes* you
anything, especially not software maintenance on your whim at zero cost.
You may have demanded (politely) a change. You may be completely right
about what needs to be changed, and they may even agree with you. But that
does not mean they have the resources or desire to make the change. In open
source software, if you want something fixed, you have three options:
- ask nicely (and you may get it, or you may not),
- pay someone to do it*,
- do it yourself.

* and don't shout at them either.

Community leadership may find they get the behaviour they reward.  If they
> want courtesy they should respond positively to courtesy.  This is very
> basic motivational psychology.  The kind of stuff you get in Psych 101
> classes.
>

It sounds like they did "respond positively", in that they considered your
suggestion rather than ignoring it. Are you suggesting that they should now
reward your tantrum with fixing the issue? I'm pretty sure Psych 101 would
recommend against it, lest it validate your foul behaviour.


> P.P.P.S. Before lecturing me, Sparky, you probably should check history
> *and* check that the docs you so smugly point out are a) the actual
> answer to the problem (they aren't), and b) even accurate (they're not).
>

I'm not going to go back two years to find that you asked a question that
one time before lecturing you about basic human decency.

I strongly recommend that you think carefully before responding.
>

lol

tl;dr: Regardless of any valid arguments you may have (and I agree you have
them), you will not convince anyone to help you for free if you shout and
swear, and insult them, and that is true on the Internet as it is in real
life.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mercurylang.org/archives/developers/attachments/20150313/35405a4f/attachment.html>