Re: more SCM stuff
Re: more SCM stuff
- Subject: Re: more SCM stuff
- From: Ian Joyner <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 12:30:25 +1100
On 16/03/2006, at 12:43 AM, Arturo Perez wrote:
Ian Joyner wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit more, I'd still like to see
such functionality built into a development environment – a system
editor, rather than the primitive text editor-based environments
of today. The problem I have with SCC packages is they are yet
another thing I have to learn separate from Xcode and others.
Ian
I have few complaints about SVN's integration with Eclipse. I
think one of the issues you're hinting at has to do with the fact
that configuration management is a different discipline than is
software development (coding). They work together but are different.
The closest analogy I can think of is car manufacturing. The
engineers who design and develop new cars have very little to do
with the manufacturing of same. There's a whole 'nother group of
engineers that understand the issues related to manufacturing.
I remember there was a comment from one of General Motors VPs
recently about being really excited about a prototype car, but a few
years down the track when the production model came out, it was a big
disappointment.
This happens all the time in software engineering (although years ago
I debated the term at length I think with Bjarne Stroustrup) where
it's easy to have concepts but not so easy to produce.
Getting to the point... I'm a big subscriber to "Seamless Software
Development" where the design and analysis tools are integrated with
the programming language. Those who have done the design go on to
implement as well, so if the design needs changing, they know why.
Whereas the fragmented approach means the designers are resistant to
practical implementation changes, but may not care anyway because
they have their huge take-home fee and can always apportion blame to
the implementers. So in this case the implementers get stung and
implement the next design religiously, only to end up with more of a
mess, but at least the fault was the designers.
Software manufacturing is not there yet.
Tools like WO seem to go a long way, since I administer the model as
well as do the screens in IB (or WOB) and write the Java code. I
think some of the problems I have with WO is that there are some
things that could be in it that aren't that I have to write, and
Project Wonder does some of these. However, if I did not have to do
this common stuff, WO desktop apps would be a lot simpler and
simplicity obviates the need for SCM tools. I cited Burroughs
PatchManager which was used to maintain the OS and other system
software, which amounted to millions of lines of fairly nicely
written ALGOL (although the original MCP in the 60s was only about
30,000 lines which included the first commercial virtual memory
implementation (with WO-like faults called P-bits). Burroughs
customers did not use it because it was simply overkill for
applications development.
So I'm just wondering with WO-developed apps, which should be less
than a few thousand lines (even for JC), aren't SCM tools a bit like
cracking a peanut with a sledgehammer?
Ian _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden