From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <00e794674dffe7753356f9037813eb6e@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 21:38:51 -0500
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] impressive
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 464646c6-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

it's ironic how this guy can twist the meanings of things.  he says

	he fundamental problem is that configuration options are bad.
	Be it at runtime or at compile. Ideally there is one configuration
	which works everywhere. Every new configuration increases complexity.
	Not linearly but instead exponentially. [i'll take that to be figurative]
	Each option might influence every other option.  This is a disaster not only for users,
	but also the developers. It means exponential growth of testing. [...]


but we've all seen the code.  this is, after all, the dude that got 18 system calls inserted into
linux to support seperate threads calling chdir() and open('realative-path") independent .
good grief.  this is what arlo guthrie would call "off the edge of an edge case".

oddly i would agree but i don't know what he means by "runtime configuration".
some people might call that input.  programs, by definition, need input.

- erik