On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 08:54:48PM -0700, Eric Armstrong wrote: (01)
> Hmmm. Have to disagree here. Designers of tools, toolkits,
> and frameworks that developers could use should be both
> elegant enough and well documented enough to be appealing.
>
> Java saw a rapid adoption curve, because it was sufficiently
> elegant with respect to the languages of the day, and sufficiently
> robust with respect to the web. That made it appealing.
>
> Result: Many developers flocked to it. (02)
Here, you say Java was "sufficiently elegant." Below, you say... (03)
> I use Mozilla and love it for its functionality and (in general)
> its interface. But I didn't see anything about the development
> environment, tools, language, or libraries that was sufficiently
> appealing to draw me in. It just wasn't sexy. I'm sure I could
> get the job done, but I have much less confidence that I would
> have fun doing it. (04)
... that Mozilla isn't "sexy." Seems like you've got two different
standards here. (05)
In my references section, I cite Richard Gabriel's "Worse Is Better"
essays: (06)
http://www.blueoxen.org/papers/0000D/#nid3N2 (07)
Many researchers implement good ideas in tools that nobody ends up
using. One way to avoid this problem is to implement the ideas in
tools that people do use. If you're happy about having a sexy tool
with no users, then you can safely ignore my point. (08)
> "What's needed is a standard way to express and manipulate the
> fundamental constructs of a document, regardless of the syntax
>
> Powerful thought. Have you done any preliminary thinking about
> what it might be like? Can you put forth a strawman proposal
> that hits the highlights? I love the concept. Can it be made
> any more concrete, or are we starting with a blank page (and a
> great idea). (09)
There's been plenty of preliminary thinking: Groves, NODAL, RDF to
name a few. (010)
> "we can express all kinds of data as graphs
>
> It feels to me like we're substituting one kind of syntax for
> another, here. To process the graphs, I'll need to know the
> markup vocabulary and the lexicon of terms -- all of which is
> syntax. (011)
Sure. You eventually do need to standardize syntax as well. (012)
> "Creating a shared conceptual framework is a truly
> collaborative problem. It will not be solved by a
> single person in an ivory tower...
>
> Actually, I have to disagree here, too. I think the conceptual
> solution to the problem *will* come from one individual, or a
> few who are collaborating closely -- if only because we do not
> yet have the tools for effective collaboration! The implementation
> and the aggrandizement of a sufficient quantity of things will
> of course come from the work of many hands -- but the basic
> framework, like the Web, Ruby, and Java, will most likely be
> the result from an individual, or a couple of people who think
> like one. (013)
My emphasis is on "shared concepts." I think that the fundamental
pieces of the solution already exist. The problem is that several
people have pieces of the solution, but they are working in isolation.
These folks need to come together and create a common framework on
which all of their work can be based. (014)
-Eugene (015)
--
Was I helpful? Let others know. (016)
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=eekim&p=EnablingOnlineCommunities (017)
--
This message is archived at: (018)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=tools-yak&i=20040413054216.GB16970@douge.blueoxen.net (019)
|