[bt-devel] NASB Unlock Key

[Troy A. Griffitts]

Jaak,

Saying this statement over and over again doesn't make it real:

> SWORD code is full with... rotten bugs waiting to be fixed and
inefficiencies to be optimized. Why is practically NOTHING being done by
SWORD developers to improve such matters? Why is help to improve things
rejected? Why are bug reports ignored? Why are concerns of frontend
developers always discarded?

I program against our code in various project almost every day... on
websites, mobile phones, research environments, for university and end
users.  I have a vested interest in our code working well.  If I thought
your suggestions actually fixed or optimized anything without risking
portability, I would LOVE to take advantage of your suggestions.

I'm mostly done with this thread.  I've said all I can.  You've mostly
called me and all contributors to SWORD liars and bad programmers, all
in very general terms.  When I try to drill down to specifics, I still
get mostly platitudes from you about how things should be done.  I don't
change working code simply for what someone thinks is a better way.  If
you show me a patch makes something faster or more safe and doesn't
introduce new dependencies or risk cross-platform compilation, I am not
only willing but welcoming for changes like these, but you have said
that you aren't willing to stoop to our level of programming because
SWORD is simply beyond repair (or that's the impression I have gotten
from your emails)-- I can't express how completely opposite we feel
about the situation.  I hesitate to change anything because I know in
how many environments SWORD is used and working well and don't want to
risk any of this.  I know how many odd scenarios we've debugged and all
the little tweaks in the code for these scenarios over so many years. 
Not wishing to change things without a really good reason is my default
position.  If you are experiencing any demonstrable problems in your
current release of Bibletime, please let me know.  I'm happy to work
with you to solve the issue.

I may be wrong and this may sound arrogant, but I've worked for 35 year
in the software industry and work with junior engineers (not implying
you are a junior engineer; I have no idea of your background) every day
who have misconceptions of code maturity and use terms like 'bit-rot'. 
They don't understand the value of code maturity.  I usually send them
to read this article:

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

It might help explain our different points of view.  Again, I have every
reason to welcome any bug fix or optimization you might submit.  I want
all my projects which use SWORD to continue to be successful.  There is
no reason I would reject a legitimate fix of a legitimate bug.

I admit I do need reminders at times, so if you are genuinely bucking up
against a real-world problem using SWORD that I have forgotten (not just
wanting to see SWBuf replaced with std::string or all code to use the
latest C++17 features, or code changed to appease compiler warnings
which point out places which might be problematic, etc...) please remind
me of one problem at a time.  I would suggest adding a test to our
sword/tests/testsuite/ which can reliably reproduce the problem, to be
sure I can reproduce the issue on my end and also to be sure after we
fix the issue, your test will remain to prevent future regression.

I am not going to answer your last arguments as I think we both know
they have no real substance (browsers go to great lengths to prevent
malicious code = sure, and so does your Qt embedded browser view.  I am
sure your Qt control has sandboxing and the ability to disable remote
content, if you are worried about that).  We could go in circles on
these things forever.  I have already said I would entertain your
patches for security concerns if they didn't prohibit needed
functionality (<a href>) add new dependencies, or cause performance
degredation.

I appreciate your willingness for introspection.  Please know I've
checked my intentions, as well.  I sincerely want to work together and
sincerely want to produce useful software and would love to apply
patches that don't change things for "change's sake" but fix
demonstrable problems or improve speed.

Troy



On 1/7/20 4:12 PM, Jaak Ristioja wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to write about this. And please don't feel
> sorry about being blunt or afraid of trying to offend me. I believe I
> can take the criticism, test it and accept what is due.
>
> I do believe your (and Troy's) statements about how you see and feel and
> perceive all of this. I admit that "my tone" during writing has not
> always been neutral, loving and friendly, but has also perhaps contained
> some elements of irony, sarcasm and ridicule of some ideas. I've been
> actively trying to correct myself about such things, but am not yet
> fully free from it. I apologize for any harm this has done. While I have
> nothing to say to defend these transgressions, please forgive me for my
> ignorance in thinking such words to be for the good.
>
> On the other hand, please also be ware that the "tone" you perceive when
> reading e-mails is very often not the "tone" the author had when writing
> these words, but is instead generated by our subconsciousness which
> tries to fill in the lack of voice, tone and body language. I've seen
> myself fall into this trap as well.
>
> In all humility (not that I think to have much) having tested your
> conjectures about my motivations and expectations, I must say that I
> believe these are wholly incorrect.
>
> About acrimony, I am certain that you are incorrect that all such
> threads created by me have been acrimonous. Because I actually just
> quickly read through all 46 threads (not counting subthreads) I have
> started on sword-devel (according to my e-mail archive), and could only
> detect myself conciously expressing bitterness in only one of them:
> "crosswire.org HTTPS certificate expired!" dated 2011.05.11 when I was a
> bit angry because it didn't work. Among the rest of the 45 emails I
> found two where in hindsight the wording might have been ambiguous in
> this matter, but which I remember to have written without bitterness.
>
> So if all those thread-starting posts have been acrimonous, and I see
> myself acrimonious in only a few, it is obvious that I must be in a
> grave state of sin and blindness in that matter.
>
> Can you please elaborate on this, Peter, and help me see again?
>
> I know I have been bitter some replies. While I know that nothing can
> excuse this, it has been a suffering for me to understand why Crosswire
> doesn't much refactor and fix bugs in Sword. I apologize if this has
> resulted in me entertaining a pride, but I simply don't understand.
>
> The explanations given oftentimes seem utterly stupid from my
> perspective. Thanks to Troys last e-mails in this thread and elsewhere,
> I've to a small extend been able to understand him and Crosswire a bit
> more. I just don't understand you guys. The SWORD code is full with
> low-hanging fruits, i.e. rotten bugs waiting to be fixed and
> inefficiencies to be optimized. Why is practically NOTHING being done by
> SWORD developers to improve such matters? Why is help to improve things
> rejected? Why are bug reports ignored? Why are concerns of frontend
> developers always discarded?
>
> It seems INSANE and I've not received any explanations which would
> reasonably explain whole situations, which is why I've almost always
> replied requests for clarification and/or my counterarguments. So far
> they have been unsuccessful in enlightening me, and I've not managed to
> persuade my discussion partners as well, possibly only gotten them
> deeper entrenched in their positions.
>
> Although I admit to having made mistakes by my choice of words, I
> suspect that perhaps my persistence in continuing such discussions and
> persistance in pushing for change is even more to blame, because it
> might have tired you to the point that you perceive me negatively?
>
> J
>
>
> On 07.01.20 20:10, Peter Von Kaehne wrote:
>> Dear Jaak,
>> Greg and Troy have answered the substantials. May I only add - I would like you 
>> to ask to have a serious look at the tone of your emails to this and related lists.
>> There are only two appropriate ways of using the library mand associated modules 
>> and  you try to find a third one which does not exist.
>>
>> You can use it as a gift or you can use it + contribute as a part of the team.
>>
>> Latter does not seem to work as you and Troy do not really see eye to eye on the 
>> terms and direction of development, the bulk of your patches are rejected as 
>> they do not conform to the coding standard (chosen by the lead and not really up 
>> to your question) and direction (again, chosen by the lead and really up to your 
>> question).
>>
>> Former would require a certain level of acceptance that this is what you are 
>> offered and whether it has a bow and a ribbon or not is not within your rights 
>> to demand, it is a gift after all.
>> The usual approach a normal person has towards gifts they do not like is to 
>> smile politely, thank the person who has given it and then take it to a charity 
>> shop or recycle it otherwise. Or add some lacquer and furnish and use it anyway. 
>> So you coudl of course find your replacement for libsword - but as Troy has 
>> pointed out, you do end up in a dodgy landscape in terms of module rights if you 
>> want to use our module base. Or you could add the lacquer and furnish to your 
>> liking - after the giver has gone out of the door.
>> Your tone all the way through the last few years suggests that you believe you 
>> are owed by Troy and by LibSword team a bow and a ribbon, tied to your exact 
>> specification. It won't happen, so the moaning is useless. But more importantly 
>> it is also a poor witness, it is aggravating, it is plain unpleasant. It makes 
>> even sensible posts by you something only approached with trepidation
>> My suggestion is - use whatever glue code you would like to "sanitize" any 
>> libsword output and be done with it. This is what you get and you won't get 
>> anything different by moaning loud and repeatedly. Accept libsowrd and its 
>> (Troy's)  ways or move on. Bibletime did that for a few years and it seemed to 
>> work - there was some constructive flow back and forth even when Bibletime team 
>> stayed somewhat outside the closer circle.
>> I am sorry to be so blunt. There have been several unfortunate threads on 
>> sword-devel and else which have become acrimonous - but I find pretty much any 
>> and all threads started by you on matters of Sword are acrimonous before anyone 
>> else had even a chance to answer to you. Please do change this. This is not a 
>> coding request but an etiquette request.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Peter
> _______________________________________________
> bt-devel mailing list
> bt-devel at crosswire.org
> http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/bt-devel
>