Grant Bowman wrote:
[snip]
> My thought on this is that with Augment, the -design- I think is very
> good. There are thousands of man-hours involved in the design of this
> product. Its implementation may be a bit dated by today's standards,
> but its -design- I would say is good. The algorithms used may not
> change all that much on the back end. That's part of the point. Even
> if just used as a reference, I believe getting the code out would be
> tremendously useful and not cause any overhead.
>From the work I've done in Augment: absolutely agreed. Even
if the code won't port, the logic will -- and as Grant says, there
are a lot of man-hours in Augment (rather well-thought man-hours
at that).
I gather that Doug is *not* a "port Augment" maniac. He simply wants
solid architecture. He also expects it to morph once it hits the
wide world. In his exact words, "Let a thousand flowers bloom!"
Perhaps the two views line up nicely? Augment code/logic forming
a solid platform that can evolve into the future? With a solid
platform under our feet, we're in a much, much better position
to do a whole lot of very interesting coding over the next few
years.
(But surely Augment has been superceded? I don't think so. I've
been trotting the globe searching for XML advances. The state
of the art papers mostly point back to Doug and Ted Nelson.)
Nicholas
-- ______________________________________________________Nicholas Carroll Email: ncarroll@inreach.com Alternate: ncarroll@iname.com ______________________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Tue Aug 21 2001 - 17:57:56 PDT