Persist or not persist : comment
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:17:19 -0700
> From: Brian Rice [mailto:email@example.com]
> Subject: RE: Persist or not persist : comment
> blah, blah, blah
> low-level ideas, once again. preferences expressed.
On my part, yes. I express things, and my goal is to be understood. I try
to use complete sentances so that people can guess what I'm talking about
(even if I'm otherwise unclear). Do you not care? Or are you merely trying
to offend people? Are you trying to imply (or state) that my discussion is
I'm seriously not sure whether you're trying to offend me, but it looks kind
of like it.
> Hello? This is not what tunes is about.
Expressing preferences? No. It's about designing a system.
> I was analyzing other systems.
> I've looked at those good examples, and their ideas of
> documents are all
> extremely low-level. The point of Tunes is _not_ to
> implement imaginative
> ideas, it's to build a high-level framework so that we don't have to
> implement them ever again.
One part of building a high-level framework is to build the low-level
framework. I agree that we don't want the low-level framework to be decided
BEFORE we have specified the high-level one; it's clear that the high-level
behavior is more important.
This is why I stomped on your statement that "saving" should make accessing
the document faster.
> >Again I emphasise: _look at Udanax_. It has possibilities
> >for version
> >control like I've never imagined before. It's AWESOME. And free.
So evidently you don't want to consider the new possibilities expressed by
Udanax. That's probably because you've thought of them all individually
before: a fileless, version controlled, highly linked system. Heck, who
hasn't? I urge you to reconsider -- don't consider the Udanax code or
interface, look instead at what they tried to do and the capabilities of
their data structures and algorithms. They can really do it, not just think
Things like that can make a lot of our file-centric assumptions obsolete.