[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: in-tree Lynx
- To: tech_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: in-tree Lynx
- From: Chris Pinard <slarti_(_at_)_gallifrey_(_dot_)_e-space_(_dot_)_gweep_(_dot_)_net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 08:09:02 -0400
- Mail-followup-to: tech_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
>What do you all think of links,
>better handling of tables and frames,
Well, this may have vastly improved in the three years since I last
looked at it, but to excerpt from a rant I've ranted about links before:
"Yeah, it runs pretty nice. But the code is shit. [...] It's like the
author wrote it as a bunch of spaghetti code, and then, rather than
untangle the spaghetti and make it something a bit more intelligible,
took a fork and knife, sliced through the knot of code a bunch and mixed
up the bits [...] Oh, and it's completely uncommented and undocumented."
More at http://www.gweep.net/~slarti/Ramblings/links_rant.txt
That's what *I* think of links, anyway.
Mostly recovered from the SAN loss...
Chris Pinard: Just zis guy, ya know? -- slarti_(_at_)_gallifrey_(_dot_)_e-space_(_dot_)_gweep_(_dot_)_net
Who are you? What do you want? Why are you here?
Visit your host, monkey.org