Stephen McConnell wrote: > Pete Carapetyan wrote: > >> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: >> >>> My complains are not technical, but about the community. You guys were >>> so obsessed by SoC that you came to its antipattern: FoC (fragmentation >>> of concerns). >>> >>> <more snip/> >> >> Really there is just a minor need to refocus Avalon a bit. Everything >> works fine. All that is really required is to strip away the >> unfortunate results of "my way is better than your way" batttles and >> come up with a single approach. > > Are you both perhaps referring to the *fortunate* results arrising > from of a variety of different approaches, and the ongoing effort to > establish a potential common abstracton?
Well put, Stephen. Very fortunate. A common approach, even if never perfect, would do the trick. Certainly re-use/looseCoupling/COP would be solved. There is no better vaccination against re-use than similar, but divergent approaches and syntax. In this, I seem to differ with all committers, as most committers believe deeply in making the right decisions. I believe consistency, in this regard, is much more important than perfection, though it would also be nifty keeno better etc to have both. English is a lot like Avalon in that respect. If you have ever studied languages, you might come to the conclusion that there are really some much better languages that could be used as a common world wide language. Yet it is [a/the] primary language not because it is the best, but because it is the most universally spoken in certain key circles. Consistency wins out over quality. This is not an endorsement, but rather an observation of the way the market works. I don't necessarily like it, but nobody asked me either. And nobody ever will. Yet if language experts were in charge, the focus would be fixing the problem, or the language, or the choice of languages as the standard. But to the market, it is already fixed. Learn English. Kinda stupid, but one goes with the flow. If you want software re-use, make Avalon consistent, as simple as possible, provide less rather than more documentation, and tight coupling becomes avoidable. We all win. Except maybe the perfectionists, who want to keep making it more perfect. If you are looking for good swordplay, I have given you all you would ever want, just twist my words into saying that Avalon should be imperfect, and battle forever. But that is not the case. Nail it down and keep it consistent - we got some friggin geniuses working on it here already. Perfection would probably come anyway. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
