Christian Seberino wrote: > Stewart Stremler wrote: > >> The second-system effect does not result in an improvement over the >> original. > > But Subversion is the exception to your rule. Perhaps they threw out a > couple of designs on the way to the final product thereby moving beyond > the 'second-system'. >
I would argue that Second System implies Second System Syndrome however common, is *not* a universal truth I suppose It Depends (tm) on how you define second system. _I_ assume SS means a reimplemention with significant design differences in some part of the [infra]structure which is intended to roughly satisfy the same requirements (specs) of the original. Mealy-mouthed disclaimer: for _some_ definitions of 'significant' , '[infa]structure' and 'roughly' <heh>. There presumably are additional goals as well, otherwise why change? I would argue that SVN is a success in achieving its goals of replacing CVS with equivalent functionality plus reduced constraints/problems and some extra capabilities (if that's a reasonable way of paraphrasing its goals). Please note that I haven't said I think SVN is the greatest thing since <preferred-hackneyed-term, default="sliced bread">. Some excuse for writing this, is to make the following observation: >From the stimulating (and entertaining) talk given by Damien Conway at the last LPSG-transplanted-to-PerlMongers meeting, I would say that perl-6 [1] is promising to be a pretty good SS. [1] aka perl-6-oh-no! .Regards. ..jim -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
