Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete)

Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

quoted

quoted

But your statement is provably wrong. Just *look* at well-maintained
projects that have extended way past their original design and usage
model. A lot of them are in C.

You mean like Emacs which is mostly scripted in Elisp?  Or the Gimp
which is mainly scripted using script-fu?

No. I mean standard C code projects. Like the kernel. Like a huge
class of other projects that are C. Not scripts.

By golly, you are right.  Pretty much all projects that are defined by
not including a script language don't include a script language.

Big, huge, projects are all done in C, and they are well-maintained.

Ok, so Emacs is a small project.  And Plone is a small project.  And
Ajax is a small project.  And LaTeX is a small project.  And autoconf
is a small project.  And gcc is a small project (we can't have RTL in
a big, huge, project, after all).  And the Linux kernel doesn't
include Makefiles or any other stuff that would be scripted in
anything but C.

Scripting is not the rule at all. And it is silly to say that
regular all-C projects need to have scripting.

Actually, if they are defined as all-C, they _can't_ have scripting
by definition.

I am not really interested in continuing this.  I don't think that
there is much I can do to make my point clearer than I did, so any
further amount of "does not" -- "does too" will not make anybody
including ourselves change his mind.

All the best,

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

By golly, you are right.  Pretty much all projects that are defined by
not including a script language don't include a script language.

The point is, you made a totally bogus and unsubstantiated claim: you 
claimed that projects that are written in C would be (direct quotes from 
your *idiotic* claims): "But it would stop being as hackable." and "if you 
are aiming for a job that gets finished and then no longer touched."

Both of those claims were pure and unadulterated *CRAP*.

Which I pointed out. You just seem to have trouble admitting it.

And both of those claims seemed to be the whole gist of your argument.

If you make your arguments based on stuff that is obviously crap and 
untrue, don't be surprised when people then consider your arguments to be 
less than convincing.

		Linus