[Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] Architectural renovation

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Barak" == Barak Zalstein <address@hidden> writes:

    Barak> You mention Visual Basic as an example of non-robust
    Barak> internal architecture yet the suggested alternative is at
    Barak> least 3 years later.

Not an example.  The point is that VB is _irrelevant_ to robust
internal architecture.  You can have good or bad architecture with it.
_But_ Visual Basic impressed the hell out of the suits because the
consultants would come in, code up something slick, on time, and
within budget, and it would work with their existing stuff.  (Imagine
that!)

Why can't a RAD environment that gives us "slick", "cheap", and "soon"
also give us "robust"?

    Barak> environment (Note that a fresh install never comes with a
    Barak> default .emacs file).

XEmacs does, although you have to look for it in the Help menu.  :-)

    Barak> while the emphasis is on the "get it working now" rather
    Barak> than "get it perfect later" (my interpretation, cut and
    Barak> paste out of context).

My point, and I think Tom's, is that with the right architecture
_both_ should be feasible.  Miles's .sig often says "cheap, good, soon
-- choose two" or something like that.  It should be possible to go
for the hat trick.  (Of course, once everybody's got the better
architecture, standards for cheap, good, and soon will simultaneously
ratchet up. ;)

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.