From: Dave (dfisher_at_pophost.com)
Date: 2002-03-08 16:13:20
On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:45:27 +1000, John Morrison wrote:
>I'd prefer not to waste time answering your back handed comments about and
>to me and get on with the job but I guess I'll have to waste more time. :-(
John--please; I don't think that Jim-P's message was a back-handed flame to you
at all. I read it as an extension to what Doug brought up with the "Town
Council" effect that can occur in open source projects, as well as a nod to
different project management styles and how we might approach that issue.. To
me, it is a call to stay focused and stay on track. For example, I think that
my suggestion to start working on the docs in TeX/LaTeX would have been a
diversion from just getting the work done. I really don't think his message
was meant as a personal denigration to you.
>> It would be much better for people to do a little bit of thinking or
>> research first. Alternatively, [talkcheapeeg] is available for
>> endless thrashing out of badly thought-out proposals.
>WHAT PROPOSALS???
Well, how about my badly suggested proposal to use TeX/LaTeX? :)
>> I personally don't trust any designer who is not willing to test his
>> ideas in code, or back them up with decent research or experience. It
>> really worries me when John says that he doesn't intend to code all
>> this. Who does he think is going to code it, then, if he won't ?
>I HAVE NEVER SAID I WON'T CODE!!!!!!!
This is true, and is the one place where he addresses you personally. But just
clarify what you had said earlier, that's all. I do recall you expressing
concern about using C++. I think you had mentioned that if you were the only
coder, you wanted to work in something that you were more comfortable in, such
as Java. I don't remember if you expressed reluctance to code at all, but I
don't think you did. So, really, please, just clarify, point back to a
previous post if you need to, and then try to let all the rest go.
>They have all been part of the discussion and I'm now working with Dave on
>code based on the design we've worked out up to this point!
Well, what I sent you was not based on that discussion, but can be used and
reworked to match it, because it is not too far off. The reason that code
exists stems from my own particular needs. But I think that when you interact
with it, it will stimulate your own OO thinking processes, and that you will
present some OO design ideas that we can then move forward with. I would love
to see a definitional set of classes and a description of what they know and do
rise out of this interaction. Then all of us here can refine and rework it
until something truly solid and foundational emerges, as Doug so aptly pointed
out as a necessary need.
Dave.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 2002-07-27 12:28:40 BST