Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms

dawn wrote:
> Frank Hamersley wrote:

>>dawn wrote:
>>>Frank Hamersley wrote:
>>>>dawn wrote:

>>Your agenda is to discredit it, not to inform yourself. More artifice!

Regardless, as you say that point has been passed - the RM is not credible from your perspective. The rest is needless sugar coating.

> My only agenda in using this forum is to inform myself. I have been
> taken to task by one MV developer who said that by continuing with
> questions and giving my opinions, it was not helpful to MV. It isn't
> my intent to harm people in any camp, but to find good solutions.

First I see no malice. Second I see no evolution of your position.

> I am
> asking questions until I am either satisfied that I understand a topic
> or satisfied that I will not understand it better by asking more. If I
> were to evangelize for MV (which I have done on occasion), I would
> surely not choose this spot. It takes all the balls I have and then
> some to participate in this forum ;-)

So RM is not a contender, and the MV promotion is for elsewhere - I take it then you are waiting at this bus stop for the "real McCoy"? To extend the metaphor you must appreciate if you do not embark, at some point the driver will close the doors and drive off.

>>>>It seems to me no matter what evidence or logical deductions are
>>>>presented that this state of affairs will not change.  Consequently I
>>>>find interesting that you bother to project any ambivalence at all on
>>>>these subjects.
>>>
>>>You are right that if my inclinations were as you have suggested, there
>>>would be no point.  So, you don't have me pegged right yet, I suspect.
>>
>>So you hope - I am not swayed.

I read some of the early posts - but I am generally time poor so it is an unreliable act and I have had to limit my interests to CDT alone to prevent a run away train. I understand and respect your prime motivations which are your own opinions etc - I am more particularly addressing your style of presentation which I see as cloaking those views to draw in a reader. A web perhaps ;-). If your convictions are so strong why not just present them directly - perhaps it is a Venus/Mars thing and somewhat insoluble?

>>>I'm here to learn, not to proselytize, whereas with my blog I am trying
>>>to write what I have learned and lay out a case for others to consider
>>>in those areas in which I have an opinion.  Here I render opinions,
>>>too, but it is so that I can find out what I'm not seeing clearly and
>>>make corrections.  I am not nearly as fixed on any particular solution
>>>as the average RM proponent.
>>
>>Heh heh - that is perfectly aligned with how you characterise RM
>>adherents - rigid and unduly structured, blind to progress whilst you
>>have to flexibility to reach nirvana.

[..]

>>I guess my interest is somewhat broader - encompassing not only the act
>>of development, but the whole box and dice.  Wholistic (sic) if you like.

Just that, the whole business - not just the data processing and definitely not just the programming. As you will recall I have pointed out on a few occasions that your written (if not cerebral) position is somewhat narrower and less corporate than that. I see that state of affairs as contributory to your incorrect (IMO) thinking on the RM (puts Little Red Book aside).

<BackOnTopic>

BTW - I don't recall any comment for or against multi-layered constraints as I described them - only your opening inference that the RM can't do it all, so coding solely in the application layer is better.   All said and all done?

Cheers, Frank. Received on Fri Feb 24 2006 - 12:17:20 CET