4dplanner wrote:I mean this as nicely as possible, but this is a failure of reading comprehension. Just because you're incapable of parsing an answer doesn't mean it wasn't given.
I mean this as nicely as possible, but this is a failure of thread comprehension. Just because you're incapable of reading the thread and seeing everyone who's ever tried to directly ask this question has been completely ignored or otherwise had their question not fully answered or even addressed doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Protip: Pretty much all of the justifications so far are that cloning needs to change. Nobody with more than two brain cells is arguing cloning should not change.
There just haven't really been direct arguments as to why removal is the correct path forward. Anytime this question is 'answered', it is providing evidence cloning as it is now is bad, not that removal is good. Sometimes there's a hint of an argument for removal, but I really haven't seen a post where skog actually explains & supports removal rather than says that cloning is bad. A lot of the reasons provided against specific suggestions are provided as "I want this to be like this" without arguing the merits of the reason, or "It would fail to fix the problem of cloning", which is a perfectly fair argument, but it isn't as if it actually answers why removal is good, it just answers why the idea suggested is bad.
Also, let me be clear here: I don't particularly believe skog is behaving like some kind of ~evil mastermind~, but I do feel like some of the parts of this PR that feel like an overreach feel like a coder not wanting his work to be reverted and preferring the idea of complete removal over something he'd potentially have to do additive maintenance to. I totally agree that making the removal because of code bloat and obsolescence are perfectly valid reasons to remove the cloning code if removal is the angle we choose, but I dislike that these reasons are reasons I'm hearing from third parties, and I don't really even recall skog talking about code bloat or obsolescence? Those are some super obvious answers, especially considering it's been used repeatedly as a great justification for removing garbage nobody maintained anymore.
Like. Normally, I would ask said coder to justify decisions like this by saying why the solution they chose is correct over other solutions to the same problem.
skog, as noted above, hasn't really done that. It seems like the question is being avoided because multiple people have repeated it and it hasn't been directly answered, to the point the people who ask it directly are being talked around rather than actually spoken at by the person who's supposed to be justifying why his PR should be merged. If this is because he wants the opportunity to really shift the meta towards revival surgery and he feels that can never happen while cloning exists in any form, okay.
Do I know that's his reason? No. Do I honestly think that's his only reason? Also probably not. It's half-formed guesswork because skog hasn't been terribly transparent about the exact feelings he has on why removal is the only way forward for cloning. And that is the problem I have with this entire conversation. I don't really mind talking around the people who are going to ride or die for cloning to exist and spout the same old garbage, and I'm happy to talk about reasonable points here, but there's no way anyone can argue with skog if it's not even clear why he thinks the path he's taking is correct.
It just ends up being fundamentally pointless.