Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thursday 04 March 2004 02:07, Berin Loritsch wrote:
I don't mind a strict spec as long as that strict spec isn't 100 pages
long. If you can fully specify the strict spec in six or seven pages
(hopefully less), then we have something that would work for most
developers.
Reading your reply, and I realize that ALL software developers SHOULD be
forced to work on designing the electronics for a year or so, just to be
enlightened on how simple things could be.
I will not even try to convince you anymore... :o(
That's ok. You don't need to. I will pursue my vision over at D-Haven,
and like Jicerilla it will likely be "avalon compliant" when you decide
what that is. However, I want to play with some new Java 1.5 features
which will in turn make what I want to do even easier.
It's not a problem. I will keep tabs to find out what "avalon compliant"
is. I highly recommend that you have a TCK that excersizes all of the
contracts so that I can prove avalon compliance. Please come up with some
definition for Avalon compliant so that we don't have to ask permission if
we want to state that fact.
Remember that compliance is not the same as endorsement, so I really don't
expect to see any comments about "you can't say that" or some such nonsense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
