Re: [infobot] Re: infobot mailing lists

[Kevin M. <pe...@pe...>]

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 04:53:50PM +0100, David Cantrell (da...@ca...) pontificated:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 05:14:13PM +0200, Jonathan Hitchcock wrote:
> 
> > Setting your withering sarcasm aside, I would have thought that the
> > benefits of the ability to sit on an IRC channel *and* be accessible via
> > MSN Messenger, Jabber, AIM, or SMS (via a GSM modem) is patently
> > obvious.
> 
> Not really.  I don't see the point of MSN Messenger, Jabber or AIM :-)
> and if I have GSM I can just ssh to my machine which is always running
> irssi.  Don't expect to see me putting any effort into supporting
> anything other than irc and email, cos that's all I care about for
> messaging.

Supporting various messaging protocols doesn't hurt. One good thing
about having a "smart" bot sitting on AIM/MSN/Jabber is that it could
be used to support clients.

Client AIM: What are your business hours?
BOT: We are open from 9-5 Eastern.
Client AIM: How do I install your product?
BOT: (spews install info)

Some of us spoke about this *way* back. 
 
> > An architecture that is not reliant on just one source is a good
> > architecture.
> 
> Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is a waste of time.  Why make
> people run two pieces of software (the backend and something to
> communicate between it and irc) when one is sufficient?  Or if you want
> to have an open specification with multiple monolithic implementations -
> why?  What a terrible waste of programmers' branes, all writing the same
> thing.  Wouldn't you rather write something innovative?

Maybe think of this in the same way DBI is done. DBI has all the nice
generic stuff, and you install the DBD::* driver module(s) you need. 

Infobot.pm
Infobot::Proto::IRC
Infobot::Proto::AIM
Infobot::Proto::Jabber
Infobot::Proto::MSN
Infobot::Proto::Email
etc...

> > That is not what I said at all.  Right from the beginning, I have simply
> > been suggesting some ideas and technologies which were not in the
> > original infobot.  I'm suggesting extending the original design and
> > embracing new methods.  I'm also clearly pissing people off by
> > suggesting that infobot is not perfect.
> 
> Don't be silly.  Infobot is a horrible mess.  But it's a horrible mess
> which WORKS, and it works NOW.  I'm happy to invest time and effort into
> making it less of a mess.  I'm not happy to waste time dicking around on
> some ludicrously over-engineered project which aims to be the be all and
> end all of bots but ends up with precisely 1 user (you) while everyone
> else sticks with what's far simpler to set up and which, let me say it
> again, WORKS NOW.
 
Sounds like we're done :-) 

Cheers,
Kevin

-- 
[Writing CGI Applications with Perl - http://perlcgi-book.com]
I was trying to daydream, but my mind kept wandering.
	-- Steven Wright