Subject: Re: New vote on SUAVE or Objective VHDL
From: Dale E. Martin (dmartin@clifton-labs.com)
Date: Sat Jun 24 2000 - 03:27:41 PDT
John Michael Williams <jwill@pacbell.net> writes:
> No. I'm not off target: I'm complaining that there is no target, just
> a lot of code circulating in the butts.
> Nice that you and others MIGHT have provided documents. I guess it is
> unimportant to you whether they are randomly chosen and conflicting
> (as are the two or more competing prototypes). No need to decide on
> anything, just have fun writing and debugging . . . .
Really, you're insulting the entire group here. A lot of research went
into this effort - user surveys, _extensive_ background research, many
papers written, meetings held etc before there was ever a line of code.
This group has been around much longer than the last year.
> Why is not the group deciding on the documents, and not being
> sidetracked into beta-testing programs which, you seem to be saying
> below, are NOT up to commercial standards of functionality.
What is the story - are you trying to start some sort of flamewar here?
I didn't say anything about the quality of anything. I said "to my
knowledge there is no commercial backing of these systems." I'm more
confident of that statement about the SUAVE group than the Objective
VHDL group, which is why it's "to my knowledge".
> I'm an expert at C++ OO coding, and I know the OO-VHDL "iterature"
> well enough to recognize a slump in progress caused by endless
> prototyping.
You're flat out wrong. I was there for the creation of SUAVE, and
you're wrong. No code happened before the language was designed.
> I don't want to read any more random documents or peer documents; I
> want to see some standards activity.
So, you feel that the group isn't generating enough paper to be a
standards activity, but you're sick of reading the paper it has
generated?
> It fulfills the purpose of this group.
You propose to design a language without going through any use case
analysis, user feedback, peer review?
> If a person can't understand what they are doing without running code
> examples, then maybe the material is too complex--or maybe the person
> should be doing examples, not standards!
That's completely flamebait - stop insulting the group.
> Think of it: For the past year, this group has, in effect, been
> granted an IEEE charter to come up with essentially an architectural
> document. Instead, you tell me that when the house is done, you will
> figure out the floorplan. It's easier on the brain that way.
I didn't say that at all. I said "the documentation that you would like
to see exists if you ask for it". You seem to think that the entire
effort of the group should go into writing a new standard in a void?
> That's what you are implying. Are you trying to say OO methods are
> just for dumb people? Maybe you have a point there, but I think
> overcoming that particular handicap is possible.
?! I'm not implying any such thing. If you're trying to start a fight
with someone, a nice way to start is to insult the whole group, and then
insult the rest of the world.
> Just drag some well-intentioned people away from the debugger, or at
> least limit theor hours watching debug, and get them thinking about
> how OO-VHDL *SHOULD* work, not how a sw engineer has so far been able
> to find time to make it run.
Honestly, you don't know what you're talking about. That's not the
process that has happened here in the least.
> Yes: You are missing my motion to provide for a way to stop coding and
> start thinking. I'd appreciate a second.
You propose to go back to 1996(?) when this effort started? I don't
second that.
> Again, I move that the proposed vote be withdrawn and replaced by one
> which provides at least for a choice "neither". If "neither" wins, we
> drop ALL reflector discussion of either program until we have a draft
> LRM document (or, maybe, chapter of a VHDL document).
> Off what handle? Do you have a handle on the standards document?
You've come from out of nowhere and made accusations about the
activities and motives of the group - that's what I'm categorizing as
"flying off the handle". If you've been very active, at the last
meetings and so forth (I have not been able to make it to those), then
strike the "from out of nowhere".
> My alternative IS ABOVE: NEITHER PROGREAMMING PROJECT should be
> further considered until at least a working group has completed work.
> But, instead of getting it adopted in the back room, I'd like it to be
> voted.
> It sounds trite, but you are insisting that now that we have the
> cart before the horse, we push harder until it works.
I didn't insist on anything. I asked you what you felt is more
appropriate at this point. You seem to be saying, "I missed what was
done 4 years ago, and now I want you all to start over".
I have no objection to you making the proposals you have, but I don't
second them.
Later,
Dale
-- +---------------------- pgp key available -----------------------+ | Dale E. Martin | Clifton Labs, Inc. | Senior Computer Engineer | | dmartin@clifton-labs.com | http://www.clifton-labs.com | +----------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jun 24 2000 - 03:31:01 PDT