> bear wrote:
>> My experience though with people providing "uniform APIs" is that it
>> creates a strong temptation to regard the underlying data structures
>> as interchangeable modules, without regard to the efficiency of
>> operations in those structures.  This becomes a design requirement,
>> and then people restrict their use of primitives to just those
>> primitives available in *all* of the potential modules.

xxxxxx@freenetproject.org wrote:
> Thats hardly a design issue.  Thats more a matter of bad management or
> design on the part of the end user.

Please, quit trying to dodge responsibility on this issue. Some designs
are error-prone. While *some* of the responsibility falls on the people
who actually make the errors, a *large* part of it falls on the designer
who keeps producing error-prone designs even after he's been informed of
the problem.

You've responded this way on more than one issue -- performance and
usability, at least. This is part of why I don't trust your design, why
I keep insisting on more implementation experience before you finalize.
"But it's not MY fault" is never an appropriate answer to a review
comment. I'd add "egoless programming" to the list of things you should
read up on.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd