[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: real world problems vs. abstract problems - distinctions? policy?

From: Uday S Reddy
Subject: Re: real world problems vs. abstract problems - distinctions? policy?
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:51:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4

On 10/4/2010 1:17 AM, MON KEY wrote:

One often encounters certain like or similar terms/phrases w/re Emacs
bugs, errors, (mis)interpretations of functionality etc. which hinge
on party-A's dismissal of party-B's understanding/interpretation of a
problem as being somehow not of the "real world". Presumably the
counter to a "real world problem" is a problem which occurs as an
"abstract problem".

No, not really.  The "counter to a real world problem" is a theoretical 
problem, i.e., a problem that exists in theory but doesn't arise in practice or arises so 
rarely that it is not worth the effort worrying about it.  It is a judgment call.  (It 
doesn't have to be.  You can produce evidence of real-world importance if you care to.)

Since Emacs is free software and the emacs developers are volunteering their 
time and effort, the onus is on the rest of us to convince them that a problem 
is important and worth their effort.  They don't have to convince anybody of 
anything.  If we think a problem is important, we are welcome to go and solve 
it ourselves!


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]