Google Groups

Re: The future of binary embedding


lkcl luke Feb 29, 2012 8:18 PM
Posted in group: mozilla.dev.embedding
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Justin Lebar <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> i'm going to keep on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on at this
>> until i get answers, and pyxpcom works.
>
> Luke, I think it is unlikely that you will accomplish your goals if
> you make trolling your primary strategy.

 i don't know what trolling is, and you are probably mistaking
trolling for pathological bug-fixing and 100% focus on getting a goal
completed irrespective of "trying to make friends".

 but you are dragging the conversation off topic.  i am still waiting
for ben to acknowledge the points made regarding his misunderstanding
of the situation regarding the continuous changes to XPCOM interfaces,
which are absolutely irrelevant to dynamic programming languages.

 and, if that was the primary justification for destroying pyxpcom
then it is a mistake.



> You've tried to argue that it's in our best interests to maintain the
> python-xpcom bindings.  Those in this thread have heard your argument,

 no they haven't.  i'm not done yet.

 there's more to this.

 so far i've explained to chris that javascript as a compiler target
of a dynamic programming language results in an order of magniture
performance hit; to ben that he's mistaken about the binary
compatibility issue and so on.


> and they disagree.

how can you disagree with an incomplete perspective?  i don't understand.


>  You think that's our loss, and maybe you're right!

 maybe?  there shouldn't be *any* "maybe".  you're supposed to be
world leaders at the forefront of technology.  there should _be_ no
"maybes".


> But just because you think we're wrong doesn't give you the right to
> waste everyone's time.  You are not entitled to anyone's attention
> here or in bugzilla.

 you are assuming that this is ego-driven.  where is the money that i
am being paid to do this work on behalf of others?  where is it?  can
you please tell me where the personal motivation is, please?

 have you seen any?

 mm?

 you've already badly let down the OLPC community.  that means that
it's now my responsibility to the pyjamas community to get this done,
and i'm PISSED that it's going to cost _me_ money and time when i've
been earning UNDER POVERTY LEVEL INCOME FOR FOUR FUCKING YEARS.

 do you not fucking get it?  we got EVICTED last year - myself, my
partner and my 2-year-old daughter, because i stick to free software
principles and have to turn down lucrative contracts where people in
the United States violate the Treaty of Rome's clauses on intellectual
property ownership.

 you guys have absolutely no idea.  i was _homeless_ for two years,
from about 2007 to 2009 for god's sake.  and i _still_ kept to free
software principles and still kept working on free software.


> Maintaining xpcom bindings for Python is work!  You're probably right
> that it would be more work for you than it would be for a core xpcom
> contributor.  But it's work either way,

 yes, it is.  so go on.  ban me.  come on.  go stick your fingers in
your ears.  make the decision to revoke my bugzilla account (like the
webkit team did, after their deliberate bullying).  see how far that
gets you.

 the damage to the free software community of mark rowe's bullying was
- is - _immense_.

 you want to do the same thing?  go ahead.  because if you don't start
taking responsibility for this instead of going "nur, nur it's not our
core focus", i _will_ absolutely pathologically drive you to that.


> and I think you are unlikely
> to convince someone to do work by threatening to be a troll.

 i don't actually know what a troll is.

 however i _will_ be absolutely pathological, persistent and get this done.

 it would be very very good if you found someone _else_ to do the work.

 anyway.

 you've made me extremely angry, but let's forget that that happened, shall we?

 now, back to the subject at hand.

 here's where we are: i'm waiting for ben to acknowledge that the
points made about the dynamic programming language bindings to XPCOM
interfaces make no odds regarding this "binary compatibility"
argument.

 he very kindly raised the point, which gives us an insight into why
the mistake was made.

 now.

 ben.

 without prejudice.

 it's okay to admit that you made a mistake.

 nobody is going to think anything less of you if you say "ah, i made
an error of judgement because i didn't know how pyxpcom+hulahop works"

 do you acknowledge that for dynamic programming languages which use
"lazy binding", binary compatibility with XPCOM interfaces is
irrelevant?

 i'm keenly aware that all decisions have been made to destroy pyxpcom
based on the mistaken assumption that binary compatibility is
important to dynamic programming languages.

 a simple yes would suffice, then we can move on to the next stage, ok?

l.