in reply to Re^2: Death and Return of TIMTOWTDI
in thread Death and Return of TIMTOWTDI
most people care even less, as they have Gnome or KDE running ontop of their window managers.
That's pretty much the essence of my point. Pretty much all window managers are interchangable, which implies they are equivalent. If they weren't equivalent, you wouldn't be able to swap one for another. And if they are equivalent, why bother maintaining the existance of more than one?
I don't really think it is fair comparing window managers to MSWindows - MSwindows was a desktop environment, something that the Unix world didn't really have until KDE/GNOME (unless you want to count Sun's miserable attempts).
Regards your (sarcastic) comments on CPAN, - my apologies, it's hard to see that humour in writing sometimes. Your slightly broken English makes it hard to see your point there.
What you appear to overlook twice now, is that CPAN modules sometimes do use 1970's code. A lot of modules are thin wrappers around C code, some of which is quite old (usually not 70's though). So there's your code reuse. I don't see the redundancy at all. In fact, I request that you back up your comments about redundancy in CPAN, because I can't see it.
The only redundancy that gets into CPAN is when people upload their redundant code, as you have declared that you intend to.
You also appear to be suffering massive confusion between the idea of redundant code, and reusing and improving on code. You are confusing 'use what is already written' with 'everything has already been written'. CPAN's existance is not built in redundant because there is the constant addition of new code that has never been seen before in the world.
This point is so obvious to everyone else on this thread that it seems apparent you are just trolling. So I guess I've been trolled and hence I lost, but I don't think I'll insert my quarter for another round.