ORG,GEN [arf4]

[Andreas Arff]

> In [Arf1] (I'm happy everybody begins numbering his messages), Andreas says:
>
Good, but have you noticed I number my messages from 0 when I start a new
thread. Is this wrong according to your scheme?

> > First:
> > Let's divide into smaller groups.
> > Second:
> > Let's get something done.
>
> Hey, Andreas, you awoke me from my sleep ! Thanks for that, but ...
> Here's my reply to Andreas.
>
>  That's true, discussion don't advance quickly enough, and we must organize.
> I've proposed something in my early [far10] message (Monday, March, 1st)
> but nobody ever replied (did you read it? I know I should have posted
> multiple messages rather than a big boring one).

I have read all messages from everyone!

>  My point is: YES, we must each concentrate on a subject, and YES, each
> subject should have a manager that keeps track of discussion, what are
> pros and cons of each solution to each problem. But NO we can't split:
> we haven't agreed on anything precise yet.

We are not going to "split" exactly in that meaning. We are just building
workgroups to get things a little bit more hierarchical, or maybe I should
say inherited:-).

>  What we know and are sure of is:
[Stuff deleted]

We are all(?) eagerly awaiting Dennis new spec's.

>  All the remaining is still discussed. So how can you talk about I/O !
> I'd love we be able to, but unhappily not at the moment.
>  Let's organize first and agree on more detailed features, as well as
> on the essential point everybody flees (excepted Michael, who knows it,
> but tries to reject it): what are objects to be precisely, and what
> will the Kernel/base system implement ?

I belive Dennis will make this clear in the next spec.

> > Discussions can continue but we got to get something done!
> They must, and only through them can we advance.

They will continue, but not the way we are doing it now.
>From when we receive next spec. we will start discuss implementation problems.
No objections? Good!

> I agree with groups, but again we can't split for the time being, without
> having agreed anything in common to the groups (not even the ROI
> implementation principles).

You are all just like kids on christmas day. Wait for Santa Dennis.

> > Now there are one more thing I want you elgere to notice when you respond
> > to my last mail, tell me what langauge you want the language group to work
> > with.
>  A NEW language; it should be OOed, include functional notation, and
> constraint programming and/or inter-object relation managing. It should
> also be meta-self (i.e. be its own preprocessor), be modular (auto-
> expandable), handle genericity, accept polymorphism and inheritance through
> implicitness.
>  Why not C++ : it inherits low-level features and unsecureness from C; bad
> low-level feature: implementation is determined by syntax, not optimization;
> type casting is unsafe, so you can't trust compiled code; only special
> paging hardware can enable safety.

Why don't you implement ADA then?

> > Sorry Fare' and Lay, we are not buying a pig without having a look at it
> > first:-(.
>  You're right; that's why I'm talking about it in next message.

Do so.

I miss response from the following: (Don't know the name of you all:-()
 Gary D. Duzan
 David Garfield
 Dr. Hayden
 McKeeve
 Dan Odom
 Michael Winikoff
 Dspascha (?)
 Erik "Fate" ...


Those who have responded positively:
 Dennis
 John Newlin
 JJ Lay
 Me (that was hard to guess...)
 Francois-Rene' Rideau


> > Current status:
[No change]

> What kernel are you going to test ?
Ask him, not me.

Arff
sig.'s in for 1000 miles service
        --Andreas Arff          andreasa@dhhalden.no--