Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by coldtea 3360 days ago
>Not when I read the replies to that reply.

Even more so after one reads the replies.

Perhaps we didn't read the same reply?

Because the response you've posted:

1) only addresses one of the tens of points in the reply -- the others still being valid.

2) while true, it is still irrelevant from a technical standpoint (not to mention softened in the subsequent version anyway).

3) At worst, the Evas author failed to grep the right version for it. Whereas the ranter, at best, fails to understand C coding, failed to consult documentation that was right there, complaints for valid behavior, cites several wrong facts about the behavior of the code (like the supposed "512" object limit), and closes with the BS "it will take man-years" to build a sample simplistic media player with the lib (using a ready made codecs/media player widget component).

Evas/Eve etc have some questionable design decisions, and not the best documentation. But the original post is full of crap in almost every aspect, and with unwarranted language to boot.

1 comments

Are you an EFL developer or the author? I have read the whole 19 pages of comments, plus the sister thread on os news, and you are the only one that can't understand all the problems in that ball of sh*t apart from the EFL author and his coworker. In any case I would prefer to lose an hand than to work with someone like you for which writing non type-safe C code, with 40 vulnerabilities discovered by a single researcher, is perfectly fine.