RE: (FC-Devel) Status of Development

["Lavergne, Dean" <dean.lavergne@csfb.com>]

Alexander wrote:

> Lindsay.Marshall@newcastle.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> > We are not going to get
> > *anywhere* until we have some code. You can plan all you like but
> > nothing will come of it except more and more planning. We need
> > something that people can kick the tyres on *NOW* not in a couple of
> > months. As I keep saying the planning is fine and admirable and all
> > that - and I am all for it, but we need code and we need it now.

I understand your impatience and hope to remedy it soon.  Now if I can just
give
up Quake 2 I'll have plenty of time...

> My question is simple -- *WHY* ?

At the moment we have a few broad requirements.  I view _any_ actual
contribution as welcome.  Lets do it people.

> Just to make another deathmarch ? :(

We will only fail if no-one contributes.  Once the ball is rolling, I think
things will be easier.  Bits may fly off (I'm planning a Shlaer Mellor based
client) but the main path of the ball will be clear.  Arguing documentation
vs
code isn't productive, producing either is.  Even code that isn't used or
documentation that no-one else agrees with are valuable!  (They document
blind
alleys and help justify the stuff that is used.)

DL: I agree.  If someone wants to start producing code, let's go for it.
This doesn't mean we should stop the requirements/analsyis/design process -
the least we'll gain is experience.  We know that we need a GUI to produce
the diagrams - that's a given.  Let's be sure that we are capturing the data
in a format we can use - the IDL specified in the UML proposal.  Can we
agree on this much?



Chris Moore