RE: Proposal to turn off AOT in clojure-build-system

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3678 bytes --]

>Am Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 03:57:41PM +0100 schrieb Maxime Devos:
>> Yes. It appears you are unfamiliar with (...)
>> It also appears you are unfamiliar with (...)

>May I suggest to not make assumptions about what other people are familiar
with or not? There is no point in claiming that others are less knowledge-
able than you; they may know as much or even more than you, and still come
to different conclusions. (And even if people were unfamiliar with
something, I would object to this haughty tone and suggest a more pleasant
way of making suggestions.)

This is hypocritical, you are (somewhat implicitly) making assumptions on my (un)familiarity with good manners and (somewhat implicitly) claiming that I am less knowledges than you on good manners. Furthermore, you aren’t actually suggesting a more pleasant to formulate the message of the part you quoted.

Also, I did not simply _assume_ that Steve was unfamiliar with transformation, I _concluded_ that Steve was likely unfamiliar by what they didn’t mention in their e-mails. Furthermore, the mere “likelihood” is included in the paragraph you quoted as part of the word “appears” – I did not claim that Steve is unfamiliar, I only claimed that it appeared to be the case, which is not the same thing. 

After all, perhaps Steve does know that such transformation exist but personally concluded them to not be a proper solution for some reason. In that case, now people know there is a disagreement on the role of transformations w.r.t. AOT and perhaps the source of the disagreement can be resolved, furthering knowledge and bring us closer to deciding on what the proper AOT default would be.

You mention that other people might know more, but there is also a flipside to this – sometimes people know _less_. In this case, perhaps Steve simply did not know about transformations and the proposed use of transformations in combination with enabling AOT by default would be agreeable to Steve and as such perhaps an answer to the decision whether to enable AOT by default.

As such, simply _assuming_ that Steve knew of transformations would be wrong, so I had to mention the option of transformations.

I did not simply claim that Steve is less knowledgable than me, at most it could be said that I (implicitly) claimed that Steve is less knowledged than me on the relation between transformations and Clojure AOT problems, but even then, I included a qualifier “It appears that”, not “It is the case that”.

The beginning “It appears you are unfamiliar with [...]” is simply a perfectly cromulent beginning of a sentence, not some assertion of superiority.

>For instance concerning the topic at hand, knowing that users may transform
packages as they wish to me seems to be independent of which default choice
we should make for the distribution.

It is not independent, see my previous e-mail where I explained how the existence of transformations turns some problems mentioned w.r.t. enabling AOT into non-problems.

If you have a disagreement with that explanation, please actually say what the disagreement is instead of only saying that you disagree. The former might bring us closer to some collective decision on what the proper default behaviour is for Guix, the latter doesn’t, is almost useless and makes it look like you didn’t bother to read the ‘(...)’ part.

While I suppose it is technically possible you have read the part ‘(...)’, given your response I simply don’t believe you did and hence I consider it fair to conclude that you are not familiar with the contents of the (...) part.

Best regards,
Maxime Devos

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5728 bytes --]