Re: Bug#354831: ITP: bfc -- Brainfuck compiler
On 02-Mar-06, 05:31 (CST), Panu Kalliokoski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I only saw the last one of the flame wars you mention, and it didn't
> even cross my mind that this ITP would gather similar attention.
Then I apologize for implying otherwise.
> Note that the package name does not have any controversial words.
Well, I did; but nobody reads footnotes :-)
> Besides: if it's tiresome to argue about indecent words, is the
> solution, then, not to use them, or not to complain about using them?
As with many things, there's no hard answer. A lot of of it depends
on the audience, and reasonable people tend to tune their vocabulary
accordingly (i.e. I try not to say "fuck" in front of my mother.) I
would prefer to save my energy for battles with the Society of the
Perpetually Offended for "more important things" (quoted to demonstrate
that I understand that the value of the phrase is completely determined
by personal opinion).
So, to reiterate: if you're serious about packaging 'bfc', I certainly
don't object. Just be prepared for the occasional whining from the SPO.
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net