This is flame bait, right?
On the off chance that it's not: You might as well ask "When there is
<my operating system>, which makes everything so easy, why is there a
need for <a rival operating system>?" Or "When there is <insert name
of favorite editor here> which makes everything so easy, why is there
a need for <insert name of rival editor here>?" Personally, I wouldn't
even think of trying to get work done without Emacs running on UNIX
(or a UNIX exmulation layer like Cygwin.) Other people are happy
editing code in Notepad on Windows 95, and still others feel most
productive using JBuilder or Visual C++ or Visual Age or some other
graphical IDE.
The answers are the same for the Jess question as they are for the
above two questions:
- Choice is Good. Every software package makes a different set of
tradeoffs, so no one package is right for everyone. Some emphasize
performance, some ease of use, some are elegant, some are
down-and-dirty, some are bloated, some are scrappy.
- Ease-of-use vs. power. One man's "easy" is another man's
"oversimplified." Some people can get by with point-and-click or
pseudo-english; some need actual programming. Some people are
intimidated by command lines; others feel they can't get any useful
work done without one.
- Community and support. Some software packages have a community
around them: a mailing ist, occasional meetings or
conferences. Sometimes support is the phone number of an anonymous
marketing person with a troubleshooting flowchart; sometimes it's the
email address of the software's developer.
- Platform. Some software is portable, some is
platform-dependent. Some can be used in embedded systems or on
supercomputers; others work only on Win32, only on UNIX, etc.
- Openness. Some software comes with a source license, some
doesn't. Sometimes the source license is an expensive add-on,
sometimes it is free. If you have the source to something, you can fix
bugs, add features, modify features, or simply better understand how
it works. Certain industries insist that they must have full source to
all their mission-critical applications.
- Cost, yes, and licensing options. One reason that CLIPS and Jess are
widely used in academia is absolutely because they are free for
academic use. But commercial users also have varying needs, and they
have to weigh initial cost, support cost, training cost, runtime
royalties, and many other costs, and try to optimize their own
particular equation.
Everyone has to make up their own mind regarding what they want on
all of these axes before choosing a particular product. Sometimes the
choice is obvious. Sometimes, you just think it is.
I think Manoj Kumar T.C. wrote:
> when there are so many commercial tools that make the
> job of developing expert systems much easier, why is
> there a need to develop the system using JESS??
>
> Is it just a matter of cost?
>
> Or is there any specific reason why people prefer
> developing systems using Jess/Clips??
>
> truly,
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Friedman-Hill
Distributed Systems Research Phone: (925) 294-2154
Sandia National Labs FAX: (925) 294-2234
Org. 8920, MS 9012 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PO Box 969 http://herzberg.ca.sandia.gov
Livermore, CA 94550
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
