>
> No!
>
> That's not pure enough!
>
> You're not looking at it from a purist's POV, Mark.
>
> The TRUE purist would look at that button as an "enabling" button,
> allowing one to turn ON the "features" at will. The true purist would
> see that as pandering and therefore unacceptable. The purist's camera
> could never have the features in the first place.
>
> Which is why it'll never be built.
>
it could be built without any great difficulty if it was designed with that
in mind.
It would be a matter of designing a suitably minimal framework with
scalability that people could use to add components ('plug-ins' I believe is
the modern term for such things), then providing a way for people to supply
the additional components.
It has been a solved problem since probably the invention of the subroutine,
certainly since Parnas wrote his famous paper about designing for ease of
extension and contraction. The trouble is, most software development
organisations (especially management, but including developers) are
completely ignorant of the history of the subject and of the basic
principles of software design.
Hands up all the software developers on this list who have read the
aforementioned paper, and ever put the principles into practice?
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
