On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:44, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I disagree completely. I probably agree with the intent of what you’re saying, but I can’t let this statement stand as is.
Architecture astronautics lead to a lot of entropy for not much gain. Frameworks are helpful when they try to address a problem, not when they try to make you build your application around them. ...
Well said.
... What I was saying is that when I see “flexible application framework”, that *usually* means there’s some architecture astronaut[1] at work.
[1]: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
And now for a completely off-topic note, Joel in the article shares my healthy disregard for many online journalists[1]: <quote> "... with the imbecile business journalists dripping with glee as they copy each other's stories: "Peer To Peer: Dead!" </quote> I've said this once; though not nearly as well. I still often read: " ... open source software, written by programmers in their spare time and made freely available blah ..." Counterexample: OpenOffice.Org "Sun is still the largest contributor to the project with some 50 developers in Germany, followed by Novell with about 10 contributors, and only four active community developers."[2] | |___ even took me by surprise. [1] Not worth a new thread sorry. [2] http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1530132226;fp;2;fpid;1 Sid.