Assuming people find this sort of presentation useful, I would very much like to see it used to model other libraries and such. One step at a time…
Crowdsourcing is a good model for some things, but I don't think it's a panacea. I know I'd rather have original authors build the ontologies associated with their libraries (again, cart before horse here) than functionally-anonymous masses doing so. I'm no replacement for Rich in this regard, but I can at least guarantee that there will be a consistency to the model and a sole point of accountability for its quality. A good balance might be flagging, where the community/membership can flag errors, suggest additions, etc; the uservoice tab (which will be included in the actual visualization) is an informal step towards that. - Chas On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:49 PM, rob levy wrote: > Again, it's not that *I* wouldn't pay, it just seems unfortunate that most > people won't get to use it. Whether right or misguided, there is a culture > of free as in free beer on the net, that will result in most not giving it a > chance. A separate but related issue is the advantage of free as in freedom; > if designed for collaborative content development, that would make the > service more actively used and free of errors, and more scalable to include > models of other libraries, with library developers using the tool to model > their own new libraries. > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Chas Emerick <cemer...@snowtide.com> wrote: > > On Apr 19, 2011, at 1:10 PM, rob levy wrote: > > > This seems great. The $20 bothers me, not because I don't want to pay it, > > I would gladly donate this meager amount for such a useful resource. > > There's just something in poor taste about not making this open to > > everyone. And there's an implicit camaraderie and good will that developer > > communities have come to expect that makes this paywall seem weird and > > unwelcoming. If you framed this as a donation, with access not contingent > > on donation, it would be perfectly fine-- and people might actually use it. > > If people feel that the work is worthwhile, they'll pay, if not, they won't. > I suspect that I'll end up sinking about a full man-month into the ontology > when all is said and done (with incremental improvements as later versions of > Clojure are released, etc) so I don't feel badly about charging real money > for that, and being honest and direct about the nature of the transaction. > Nevermind the effort around the UX, etc. > > Really, I'd wish more developers would charge reasonable amounts for tools > that they work on for free in their spare time; perhaps more of them would > work on them full-time, and we'd have better tools! > > Anyway, it's just a preview site at the moment -- there's no "paywall" > anywhere. > > - Chas > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your > first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
