Quote:
Originally Posted by Faterson
Absolutely. What we need to do here, is to choose the lesser of two evils, because a perfect solution doesn't exist. So, what's the lesser evil here?
- The user instructs Marvin to sort by authors' last names, but Marvin 3 ignores that and sorts authors by their first names anyway.
- In the comprehensive authors listing, some authors (if the "author sort" meta-tags for some of their books are incorrect) may appear with double, triple, etc. entries – thus signaling to the Marvin user that his/her meta-tags need to be fixed.
Option 1 is the status quo in Marvin 3. Option 2 is my proposal to fix it. Which of the two is the lesser evil? Would anyone really argue it's option no. 1? 
Nope, not necessary.  I've always known and appreciated you as a fair debater, eschwartz. Unlike some hyper-politically-correct posters around here, I never assume ill will on the part of fellow MobileRead contributors. But you've really gotta be thick-skinned to participate here on MobileRead, because ill will is going to be imputed to you by others all the time...  |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faterson
Nope, you're mistaken. And the programmer never said it's impossible to implement my proposed solution – he couldn't say that, because of course it is possible to implement, since it's implemented in Marvin 2. Rather, Kris has so far refused to even consider the solution proposed by me, sticking to the preconceived notion that a solution doesn't exist. As I said, the misunderstanding of authors sorting goes back to Marvin 2 and Marvin 1. But in Marvin 2 and Marvin 1, at least, through a lucky coincidence in their development, I'd say, it was possible to arrive at the desired authors sorting. This is no longer possible in Marvin 3, and all we're left with is a clear-cut bug. |
Well, obviously anything is "possible", given enough man-hours of programming.
I don't recall him saying it is
impossible, ISTR he said
it wasn't going to happen, "for technical reasons".
Not everything is worth the investment in time. And not everything is worth the performance penalties.
And once again, @
kguil might simply disagree with you about which is the superior UI.
The
best solution is simply not practical.
And your solution is only the "lesser evil" as a matter of opinion, I can hear both ways.
...
At one point, you insisted that @
kguil was refusing to give examples demonstrating why it was a problem... and therefore you refused to believe it was a problem.
Can I assume you have backed down from that position, and we are now arguing about which solution is (in our respective subjective opinions) the best workaround for a clearly demonstrated problem?
(And surprisingly, it wasn't even difficult for someone to produce an example scenario.
)
...
Also, FWIW, my ideal solution involves assuming regular English-style FN [MN] LN and sorting by the last word in the name.
But I am noted for my US-centrist views on everything...
EDIT: My second solution involves that elusive magic known as the "settings". Just in case the world wasn't full of enough settings -- but I happen to like settings and think the more the better.
And I still don't have any way of knowing whether that comes with performance penalties that @
kguil deems not worth it. But there is definitely a complexity penalty for making "it" (whatever "it" may be)
optional.