On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > On 7/19/13 13:47, Peter Thatcher wrote: > >> I think this is the real issue at hand: You value legacy interop more >> than a usable API. >> > > This. *This* is why I've told you that you're misunderstanding everything. > Don't take offense, just go back and read more carefully. I never said > anything that implied that legacy interop is more valuable than a usable > API. It's a nice strawman for you to build up and tear down, but you are > arguing with a fictional character who is not me when you do so. > > What I'm trying to point out is that these goals are not at odds with each > other. Your statement above implies that you have taken it as given that we > can't do both -- that there is a tradeoff here to be made. If you take that as a fundamental principle, then I can see how nothing I > say makes any sense. > > But they're not mutually exclusive goals. Keep that in mind, and go back > to re-read what I've written. > > You are claiming that there is no tradeoff between API usability and legacy interop. If that is the case, then why have we designed such a terribly unusable API? If we can have an API with both legacy interop and usability, then why didn't we create that API? If we can make an API that serves both sides (roughly, "web developers" and "legacy interop") well, why have we picked an API that only serves one well? I do believe that we can have an API that provides both good usability and legacy interop, and that can server both sides (and even more sides) well. But is most assuredly not the API we've designed so far, and it's not the API we're headed toward (at least not with "1.0"). I have hope for the 2.0 API, but let's not kid ourselves. The 1.0 API picked a side and ran with it. > /a >
Received on Friday, 19 July 2013 19:43:46 UTC