I think this is exactly the price you "pay" when choosing these kind of tools, or more generally, doing in the "unix way":
You just take some overhead explicitly onto *your* head but you are left with very flexible, hence powerfull, set of tools, which can be combined in numerous ways to do just about any task you choose (in principle). you do not have *such* flexability, usually, in closed source (graphic?) application. this power lures in the command line land.


Its raw power, but roughness in usage, against fixed (closed) methods/ways to use, but the ease of that usage. Well, this trade off can be phrased in many ways, but the point mentioned in the mesasge I'm replying to is, IMHO, talks exactly on that trade off. Your preference might vary.

boaz.

Tal, Shachar wrote:

If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily*
integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years
ago.

Shachar Tal
Verint Systems





-----Original Message-----
From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:38 AM
To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list
Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh'
Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)


On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote:




CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content

aware and action


driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance
(bugs, features) tracking...


Actually, CVS is a version control system and *that's it*. ClearCase is simply much more. It's like trying to compare Sendmail to Exchange. Exchange has a mail server inside but to call Exchange a mail server is ridiculous. (save me the jokes about the bugs in BOTH Exchange and sendmail, I've hearde them all. Hell, I invented a few of them.. :-)



Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app

that compiles 5


hours and another developer has already done another build

and parts of


the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like

the product, it


saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism

will bring you


already compiled parts from the network.
Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation...
Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here.


Which is available seperatly in Open Source world, as ccache. Which brings me to my next related topic:

Open Source software tends to create small flexible tools that do a single thing and do it well (e.g. CVS). You can combine several such tools to create a whole pacage that covers your needs (e.g. cvs + bugzilla + ccache).

Closed Source software tends to build big packages that try to do everything.

Some people prefer the flexability of multiple integratable single packets. Some people prefer the "full turnkey solution" of the closed source world.

I'd leave my personal opionion of it for now :-)

Gilad

--
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm)
http://www.codefidence.com

"Half of one of my eyes is already open. I'm going to make coffee now..."
-- Kathi 16:08:04






This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may
be privileged and confidential.  The information is intended to be for the
use of the individual(s) or entity named above.  If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
contents of this information is prohibited.  If you have received this
electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email.

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]






=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to