Criticism ... synthesis?

[Mike Prince]

I've been a little busy recently and have not devoted as much time as 
necessary to answering all the posts.  I'm also devoting a larger 
percentage of my time to writing a kernel, as I believe the proof is in 
the puddin'.  We have spent a lot of time recently playing ping-pong with 
these posts about how MY idea is better that YOUR idea.

Fare is right when he says the HLL can run with multiple versions of the LLL.

So instead of the HLL people imposing their ways on the LLL camp ("you 
must be more OO") let's have each present their ideas and try to coalesce 
them into one (if possible).

If the HLL people don't like the LLL, they are free to write their own.  
If the LLL people want to implement everything in C, by all means...
Let's just start agreeing and moving on.  But we must also agree that we 
may not agree.  I'd rather have smaller teams building something than a 
bigger team going nowehere.

I hope by having the camps in close proximity, each can make 
modifications of little cost to themselves but of great benefit to the other.

I'm pushing ahead for the LLL.  I believe there is a core group of four 
or five that share ideas very similar to my own.  The following posting 
is very similar to one by Johan.  Let's build on it.


On Sat, 17 Dec 1994, Dr. J. Van Sckalkwyk (external) wrote:
> Part 2. Response to Fare &c
> ---------------------------
> >Mike's (a monolithic hugeware centralized unsecure kernel, as I see 
> it);
> 
> Mike has MY vote. I also think you're being _grossly_ unfair to him.

Fare, you were being VERY unfair.  Normally I would respond in kind, but 
enough is enough.  Do not put words in other peoples mouths, especially 
when it is a thinly-veiled very derogotory remark.

[snip!]

I appreciate JVs responding to what I snipped above.  ( Thank you =) )

I have broken part 3 into a seperate thread...

Mike