Re: agx: Moving forward

Daniel Nouri <daniel.nouri@...> writes:

> Looking at this, ClassMethod seems not really to be what we want.  Plus,
> the API looks kinda tedious and the doctest itself is generally in a
> poor shape.  We need to doctest (i.e., unittest) every single function
> in the whole "Genesis".  Wake up lazy ArchGenXML programmers! 
> 
> This is really just an example to help you understand what I dislike
> about the current state the Genesis code is in.  50% of it is basically
> garbage.  Why bring us to a state where we have to first clean up the
> mess before we can get going?  I don't like this approach, and it kinda
> feels like developing with ArchGenXML in general.  First you generate
> all that mess, then you fix it, then you program what you actually want.

> You end up spending your time fixing ArchGenXML, when all you want is to
> create a program that does it right.  Why carry on with the burden of
> extending the old ArchGenXML just so it fits our (ArchGenXML- wise)
> unusual kind of code?

I think this is a danger. I'm assuming Reinout intends to work with AGX as it is
now only to save time during initial prototyping, playing and planning, and then
strip out the AGX code. Unless he wants genesis to be self-hosting, of course. :)
 
Martin






-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the  web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642