Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu> wrote:
there's something odd to my ear about people needing to
*be presented* with better alternatives than doing harm to the
architecture as opposed to those people *developing* better alternatives.
With my scientist/engineer hat on, I like to develop architecturally
pure solutions. They tend to have fewer awkward cases. The code
evolves straightforwardly from the design. The boundary conditions are
easier to test.
With my pragmatist hat on, I realize I occasionally need to do things
that will enable me to pay the bills. :(
I suspect there's something about the current economic climate that
favors development of quick fixes over development of sane ones.
but the apparent shortsightedness still bothers me.
My general (cynical) opinion of NAT and other proxy technology is that
the marketplace spoke louder than the voices of the architectural
purists. (No offense intended.) However, given recent changes in the
economic climate, perhaps things will head in the opposite direction.
--gregbo, enjoying this thread