Re: Some feature suggestions

[olet ifi uio no (Ole J. Tetlie)]

>-Ric Tibbetts <ric.tibbetts@chadera.oz.net>
>

{Please forgive me if I sound harsh at times.}

> 	I'm glad to see that someone has picked up the ball and is
> going to re-start this project, but I think that some time needs to
> spent examining what the product is going to be. Reading through the
> below, all I see it IMAP this, and IMAP that, and that since the
> developer doesn't use POP, well, he'll jsut develop IMAP.

That sounds correct. Jules is going to develop IMAP because he
uses IMAP. I don't see anything wrong in that.

> For those that haven't caught up yet, how I see this translating is:
> Screw POP... I'm going to develop IMAP.... Meaning... balsa will
> remain as good as usless to those of us who rely on multiple POP
> accounts.

NO! If someone want to develop POP capabilities there will be
absolutely no resistance. But you can't force Jules to implement
something he doesn't use. First of all, it would be right. It would
also be detrimental to the quality of the code, since he would have
no way to test it.

It you want some functionality, either write it yourself or ask
someone else politely if they would do it. Do not "attack" one
person just because he won't do it.

> 	Maybe I'm just being grouchy, but I've watched a potentially great
> product wither away from neglect, only to be revived by "I only have IMAP"...

Well, I assume that it is true: He only has IMAP. If someone with only
POP access wanted to work on the POP implementation an leave IMAP alone
that is certainly OK. And vice versa.

> 	I have to say it: If you're going to develop the product, then develop
> the "whole" product. don't leave a major portion of the user base out in the
> cold.

But why does Jules have to do it? He isn't going to (and can't) monopolise
the development. Others can develop other parts of the product. If
Jules developed POP there's a good chance that the implementation
would suffer (sorry Jules :-) from his lack of ability to test it.

> 	Flame away if you're going too. I'm to tired of this to care.

I apologise the potentially offensive tone.

-- 
Making main a void function isn't really bad. The only drawback
is that the compiler is free to generate instructions that launch
nuclear missiles (if you have the necessary hardware), drown your
gold fish or turn your keyboard into a hungry polar bear.