Benjamin Geer wrote:
>
>    * No duplicate or incompatible functionality would be allowed
>      in each functional area.  People would have to cooperate
>      to make their stuff work together.

"No incompatible functionality" is easy to agree upon.

I don't easily swallow "no duplicate functionality," however.  Libraries
have to prove their worth in the field somehow.  I would rather see
various libraries compete by free market mechanism, until for a given
set of tasks, one is clearly 'de facto' better than another.  i.e. is
better maintained, is revved more frequently or usefully, etc.  If you
make some kind of a priori announcement on what the 'standard
functionality' is going to be, that's pretty much historical accident of
which committee people were awake and functioning at the time.  I would
rather see 2 different GUI libraries battle it out in the real world.
Or 2 different wrappers for the same GUI library battle it out.  I don't
trust design-by-committee.

That said, I don't think *gratuitous* duplication is adviseable.  I
don't want 2 different libraries with different words for exactly the
same functions.

It all depends on the granularity at which you define the word
'duplicate'.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
                                - Ed Mckenzie
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.643 / Virus Database: 411 - Release Date: 3/25/2004

-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners