Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: Idea for []...

From: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 21-Mar-2004 13:35

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 22:13:55 -0500, Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch <[moliad--aei--ca]> wrote:
> IF you had a bad day, don't read this ... this reply is long, it includes > ranting and some clearly biased content...
Hi, well yesterday was my birthday, so I think I can take it :-))
> slim !? ;-) the name says it all, it keeps your apps slim. > hey, self promotion is healthy for the spirit ;-)
Ok, I'm going to give it a try and see how it works. If it's good we see if we can integrated it into xpeers.
> I'm not saying that I have the perfect tool, far from it... yet if no > one tells me how to make into what they want, or everyone says we need > something and yet they do not really try out what HAS been done... then > I do feel there is a little bit of irony in all this discussion.
That's right. It's the cirtical mass problem. Either the need isn't really that high or the tool doesn't has an USP. The former is most likely, because it's very easy to request something and tell it's needed. I always ask people to provide a concrete use-case to show for what they need something before I start working. In 80%+ of all cases, the request is solved in 5 minutes, because the requestor understands, that the request wasn't well thought. I don't expect this to be a problem of a bad tool, because in this case, you definetly had got some feedback.
> Many say, what's the point RT, will eventually " xxxx " ( fill in the > hole ) IF we all wait until the miracle solution appears, then we will > wait forever. and be warned, RT does not always give that miracle > solution.
That's why I started this thread. IMO we need to do more ourselfs in a more structured way to gain much more value from the work people like you have invested. There is a bunch of stuff outthere, cool stuff, but it's not used. Why? That's the question to solve...
> or tell me what is wrong with it... tell me how to make it better, to > explain this or that... to even send fixed or better code for any given > thing? yet so far, only two persons have really done anything with it.
You asked for it... you will get it.
> yet it should also allow for diverging tools to be included together. > as long as they are usable in the same manner.
Yes! You know what I hate most abount Linux? I have a mass of tools but I need to throw it together on my own. I need to twiddle around with hundreds of files etc. I want a set of tools and code, where using this is a no-brainer. Than it will be used. Simplicity! Getting rid of non-value complexity.
> What I mean is that peer-review is good, yet because of rebol's do it > yourself nature, it should not be exclusive, it has to be inclusive. > the group of peers must not be the singular. It should be able to have > more than one commity so that different groups of coders can collaborate > on different packages which Might just include all the same kind of > tools.
My vision is to have a pyramid of review steps. Each level reviewing a specific part. Basic tests, integration tests, vision compatibility etc. I just want to be somehow sure, that if I download a peer-reviewed piece from the library, I can reuse my knowledge about how to integrate things, how this stuff works etc. I don't want to start over and over with each piece of code.
> people need to be aware, they need to learn, and they need to be > convinced that switching to a new tool, is less hassle than continuing > with a "lesser" but understood tool.
Good point, and I add: They have to see the investment is worth for the future...
> Yet I find that the system should work like sourceforge where anyone can > start a new "peer review group" There should not be only one all > encompassing team.
I would like to put more effort upfront to form a bigger group. You just said, the problem is that only two people gave feedback. If you have 20 options to choose from and there are 40 people, the chances are low that they will pick your solution. It's the fragmentation problem...
> This means the same kind of tools can co-exist, yet have different > mindsets.
That's what we have now... -- Robert M. M=FCnch Management & IT Freelancer Mobile: +49 (177) 245 2802