Stephen McConnell wrote: > > Actually I have quite the opposite view. I belive that what is > happending at the moment is equivilent to ironing out the wrinkes on an > excellant tapestry. When those wrinkles dissaper you will see more and > more value as tools converge toward a common model, extensions to the > framework become more and more unified, small inconsistencies in the > abstractions between different layers dissapear. But the value is not > having something the is perfect - no - the value is having something > this is really consistent in implementation and abstraction - and that's > funcamentally important if your automating development or runtime > processes - and that's the magic that deliver simplicity. > Hmm,I really hope you are right.
But if you look at the history of Avalon, the dramatic changes from (was it 2.x or) 3.x to 4.0 which was really a nightmare for real users of Avalon and now again (not so) dramatic changes from 4.x to 5.0, I guess many people will fear that there will also be dramatic changes in the future from 5.x to 6.0 and so on. So why should I use such a rapid moving target? How can I develop tools for it if my tools are out of date with the next release? And so on. This might happen or might not, who knows? But I know that this has happened in the past. And for a good framework we not only need very good concepts but also a wide audience and acceptance. Carsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
