Hi Ted. > Nah... I just meant get some usable code done before the inevitable > discussion winds down. Discussions about designs in commons math tend to > follow the pattern of a) proposing an OK design, b) proposing a fine > improvement, and then c) iterating forever on hair-splitting details. The > final result is rarely as good as even (a), much less (b).
I can more or less agree on the symptoms described above. > The final design > also tends to be very strongly focussed on obscure object-orientated design > orthodoxy and not at all focussed on the end user of the library. However, I would not derive the same diagnosis. [Well, in my view, much of the hair-splitting comes from not enough of OO design, in the sense that when it is recognized that the design is lacking, it might be necessary to heavily refactor, which almost by definition clashes with backward compatibility requirements.] Discussions on this list are sufficiently tense that we probably don't need to have a flame war on OO. :-} As for not being focused on the end user, I don't think that it is true. Sometimes, it's so focused towards user applications that any other consideration is overriden. One of the dangers of only focusing on end-users is adding features without rhyme or reason; that will ultimately leads to unnecessarily complex and consequently unmaintainable code, resulting in the death of the project, with the consequence that the beloved user will be left with nothing. > [...] Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
