Leo Sutic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:12:39 -0400, Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
avalon has showed (at the very least to *me*) that reusability by extreme abstraction doesn't work because the cost of harmonizing human perceptual differences at such high levels of abstraction is higher than the cost of creating the code.
My lesson learned is that reusability that comes at the cost of having to re-engineer your deployed code doesn't gather much of a following. One could say that any project that aims to bring reusability to development had better make it extremely easy to reuse whatever code already exists. The cost of harmonizing our code bases is higher than to just plod along - especially since the target we would be harmonizing with is still moving.
In short, it's not the human perceptual differences that keeps us from achieving nirvana, it is that we have code and systems to support, and no time to dick around with evolving a framework and constantly rewriting our existing code.
Not so much social issues as economic.
I think that even if we had all day to rewrite our code, the problems would still be the same.
In fact, ontology writers just do that all day and give a damn about back compatibility, since they just aim at perfection and think that you should be able to sacrifice everything for that.
At the end, it's a matter of priorities.
-- Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
