ORG, GEN [arf3]

[Gary D. Duzan]

In Message <MAILQUEUE-101.930328123648.320@sofus.dhhalden.no> ,
   Andreas Arff <ANDREASA@dhhalden.no> wrote:

=>> It really sounds to me like you are saying that now that discussion of
=>> the general design is diminishing that it is time to begin coding.
=>>
=>> Please,
=>>
=>> [ large NO! removed for brevity ]
=>
=>My yes is much more smaller than yours but I belive I have the support from
=>80% percent of moose, if not more, so I don't feel I have to shout.

   Well, I'll have to agree on David with this one. I've heard
precious little agreement on some basic issues, and I believe it
would be foolish to proceed without some clear idea of where we
are going.

=>Ok phase one is done. Good. Now let's turn the (moose) steak. General
=>Design is the next phase, and after that, detailed design. Ok, so far so good
.
=>Dennis is working very hard to put down all his thoughts on paper. It's
=>going forward I can say. I hope we can see what he has done at the end of thi
s
=>week. That would be the "general design" wouldn't it? He has taken into accou
nt
=>what has been discussed here lately, so no objection please. There can't be
=>two captains on a ship, remember.
=>It is more appropirate that Dennis takes the command now than ever, when it
=>comes to the general design issue.

   I understood that this was going to be a group design, or were
we all recruited as free programming labor? At this stage, I think
a design imposed from above may meet resistance, and may lose group
support. Of course, if we can agree on the revised design as posted
by Dennis, all the better. It is at least a good step in the design
process.

=>> If I seem a bit intense about this, it is because I have seen what
=>> happens to a large project if there is appropriate design before
=>> coding begins.  In this case, I would expect that if we start coding
=>> now, we will in not less than two years have something that can be
=>> compared unfavorably with Windows 3.0, and that isn't good.
=>
=>Havn't we all? No it won't become a windows 3.0, do you know why. We wont
=>have ms-dos, we won't have a virtual 8086 running inside our OS. We will have
=>mem. protection etc. We won't have a world of programmers hateing us because
=>of beeing ruthless against others!

   That doesn't mean we won't end up with a useless, bloated, ugly
mess that takes three times as long to complete as it should. It
doesn't mean we will, either, but we shouldn't proceed until we have
a solid, agreeable, workable design.

=>> I will admit that I, and probably most good programmers, have skipped
=>> both the general and detailed designs on numerous occasions, but that
=>> is for small projects of not more than two people and relatively short
=>> duration.  Lets not make the mistake of thinking it works for large
=>> projects!  IT DOESN'T!  At least not unless you plan to do it over.
=>>
=>This is ment to be a small project. Flexibel and modular, so we can add thing
s
=>when we need!

   Resulting in an ad hoc, ugly system. A microkernel by itself is
completely, utterly useless. The real system is what goes on top of
it, and until we decide how to structure the system on top, we won't
have a good idea of how to support it from below.

=>Where shall I put you David? Main-group trashcanemptier? Sorry for beeing so
=>hard but we need getting organized. There isn't time for chitchating!

   This is uncalled for. If this group can't tolerate differences
of opinion, then we are doomed from the start. And what is your
rush? Patience is a virtue, or so I have been told, and we aren't
working against any deadlines. A complete system is a large thing,
and I believe that we are well justified in wanting to take the
time to design it properly.

                                        Gary Duzan
                                        Time  Lord
                                    Third Regeneration
                         Humble Practitioner of the Computer Arts