[Asterisk-Dev] Client development...

[Boudewijn van Ingen]

At 07:35 PM 27-09-2003 -0500, you wrote:
 >According to Boudewijn van Ingen:
 >>
 >> Such basic coding rules should apply to any software product. No matter
 >> what programming language. I apply them (and many more) stringently to all
 >> the code that I sell or publish.
 >
 >Boudewijn, the self-discipline in your craft is admirable, and the basic
 >coding rules you listed are definitely good ones. It's obvious that your
 >zeal for code portability is a good characteristic, incompatible with
 >Microsoft's typical "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy.
 >
 >Please understand that few OpenSource projects begin life as fully
 >architected, documented, portable code. I'm not being facetious. Often they
 >begin as simple hacks to solve a specific problem or to prove a novel point
 >("Oh cool, the TA750 *can* do backflips!") and have more and more features
 >bolted on later. Relatively few OpenSource projects find commercial use and
 >fewer still find commercial acceptance. So yes, while many of us cheer for
 >Asterisk to gain commercially speaking, I think we don't realistically
 >expect it to supplant the switch in a major telco any time soon.
 >
 >Asterisk is still described as a PBX. It may take a little time for it to
 >take over the world.

Thank God (Or Xenu or any other deity of your liking) for that. ;-)

I have a somewhat 'intrinsic' hatred towards anything that wants to 'take 
over the world'.. ;-)

 >> Considering the fact that there is apparently no documentation at all 
about
 >> the protocols or APIs involved in Asterisk, I am forced to the conclusion
 >> that indeed there were and are no formal "design goals" at all.
 >>
 >> But indeed, I would think that basic coding standards would be the very
 >> least, for a project like Asterisk. As I indicated above, apparently I was
 >> expecting too much.
 >
 >Possibly you were expecting too much, and I appreciate that you can say that
 >without sarcasm. One of the things I admire about OpenSource developers is
 >that they put their imperfect code, warts and all, out in the open for
 >you to use and/or ridicule. Nobody is under the illusion that Mark and
 >the many Asterisk contributors write perfect code, but we admire them for
 >their willingness to publish.

I do agree.

 >Admittedly, corners have been cut in the development of Asterisk. In lieu of
 >rich technical documentation and protocol specification, Mark writes rather
 >readable code, even if that code doesn't obey all your basic rules all the
 >time. However, the lack of a design document does not mean that there were
 >no design goals or that little thought went into the IAX and IAX2 protocols.
 >It simply means that the goals were not committed to writing; I may be
 >entirely wrong, but the protocol could have been planned solely using Mark's
 >noggin and whiteboard.

That particular 'strategy' does not exactly help people who want to promote 
Mark's ideas, don't you agree?

 >It's okay that Asterisk does not meet your customer's commercial development
 >timetable. It's okay that Asterisk isn't perfect right now. It's okay that
 >there's no design document that explains IAX bit by bit. You know why?
 >Because it's infinitely better than nothing, I can improve it myself
 >(theoretically speaking -- I suck at programming), it didn't cost me
 >anything but my own time to install, and IT ACTUALLY WORKS.

Unfortunately, It doesn't work at all in the real world. Or at least, it 
cannot be accepted as "working" as it is.

Until it can be demonstrated to work reliably towards those morons that 
control the money (while having less knowledge than ... well, whatever rat 
of your choice), I would be very much surprised if any large telecom 
company would ever put any trust whatsoever in this software product.

And I feel that there could have been be more to get here....

 >Please understand that your programming skills could make important and
 >welcome improvements to Asterisk. It seems that you are a wickedly honest
 >person; you call 'em as you see 'em. Just be mindful that you're not
 >criticizing some mammoth faceless organization when you kick around
 >Asterisk's implementation -- the actual people that wrote the code you're
 >disparaging are reading this list. You don't have to bow to their opinions
 >or treat their feelings with kid gloves, but you should show some respect
 >for their free contributions, however imperfect or inadequate for your
 >purposes the code may be. If you choose to begin making improvements and
 >additions to Asterisk, I'm sure you will come to enjoy the same respect.

I know my trade. I will contribute when I can.

 >As a critical newcomer with no history of contributing to Asterisk, you can
 >probably see why your initial posts were met coldly. Please consider
 >applying your skills to building and improving this community, not to
 >criticizing it.

Hmm. I disagree to some degree with several things you say. But I will 
indeed not delve into these matters further. I'm trying to get a job done, 
after all...