Challenge my assumptions!
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 12:27:00 -0700
> From: Jim Little [SMTP:email@example.com]
> Subject: Challenge my assumptions!
> I'm in the middle of a big research push for Prism. A lot of groundwork
> is being laid for critical issues such as language interoperability.
> Before I get too far, I'd like you to challenge my fundamental Prism
> assumptions. It will soon be too late to change them easily.
Okay. I'd also like to question what you're trying to achieve. Is
it something which CORBA already does?
> Here they are:
> 1) The basic Prism data types (_Bit, _Stream, _Map) are SUFFICIENT to
> represent any concept, particularly programs.
No. I originally believed they were, but some careful examination
has convinced me that they can't model at least certain types of device. A
packet stream models TCP/IP well, but it fails to model UDP/IP, because UDP
doesn't enforce ordering or preservation.
If I were helping to design the device system for an OS, I would go
on to discuss the orthogonal ways in which devices may differ. However, I
don't really know what you're doing, so I can't.
> 2) The basic Prism data types lend themselves to INTUITIVE metamodels
> for representing specific types of concepts, especially programs. I.e.,
> it's EASY to create Prism metamodels (or, at least, they introduce
> minimal added difficulty).
No, because programs = data + algorithms. Prism only models data.