[147417] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] encoding formats should not be committee'ized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jerry Leichter)
Tue Oct 1 16:19:08 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
From: Jerry Leichter <leichter@lrw.com>
In-Reply-To: <524AF842.8030502@echeque.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:18:24 -0400
To: jamesd@echeque.com
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>,
"cryptography@metzdowd.com" <cryptography@metzdowd.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:28 PM, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
>>> Further, google is unhappy that too-clever-code gives too-clever programmers too much power, and has prohibited its employees from ever doing something like protobufs again.
>> Got any documentation for this assertion?
> The google style guide prohibits too-clever code. protobufs and gmock is too-clever code.
To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I worked at Google until a short time ago; Ben Laurie still does. Both of us have written, submitted, and reviewed substantial amounts of code in the Google code base. Do you really want to continue to argue with us about what the Google Style Guide is actually understood within Google?
-- Jerry
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
