From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f3ed9f7030da79b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Open-Source and programming style Date: 1998/11/16 Message-ID: <72pufm$v83$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 412474068 References: <364d0243.39960214@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net> <72pfum$h9c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x2.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 16 19:29:59 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-11-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <72pfum$h9c$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dennison@telepath.com wrote: > In article <364d0243.39960214@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>, > tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) wrote: > > One advantage cited for Open Source Software is that it can be > > debugged in parallel by many people. That would seem to fit the style > > of 'code anything, then debug until it works' better than the 'design > > it so it works in the first place' style, which seems less amenable to > > parallelism. Comments? > > I notice a lot of people are attacking this statement on the basis that it > implies no (or ad-hoc) design. However, I don't think that is what is being > asked. If what you are getting at is the "worse-is-better" design approach > vs. the "the Right Thing" approach, I'd have to agree. After all, you can't > get the benefits of parrallel debugging until you actually produce something > nominaly useful in the first place. To quote shamelessly from Richard > Gabriel's The Rise of "Worse is Better": > > The lesson to be learned from this is that it is often undesirable > to go for the right thing first. It is better to get half of the > right thing available so that it spreads like a virus. Once people > are hooked on it, take the time to improve it to 90% of the right > thing. I think that notion is entirely unsuportable, but in any case it is not how typical GPL'ed software is in fact developed. The distinction between the so called (very inept analogy in my view) bazarre and cathedral models is largely artificial. The fact of the matter is that most large GPL'ed projects, including Linux, GCC, EGCS, GDB, GNAT is that they are very carefully controlled. For example, in the case of EGCS, the great majority of modifications are made by Cygnus, and suggestions for changes outside Cygnus are vetted quite carefully. Similarly, the mainstream versions of Linux, such as those from Redhat, are carefully controlled in terms of what goes into releases. Sure there are hobbyists and enthusiasts making suggestions and hacking their own versions, but the viewpoint that people have of uncontrolled development is in fact quite bogus in all these cases. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own