Re: [Ogden] Dependencies

[Judson Lester]

On Dec 20, 2007 4:46 PM, Mark Van De Vyver <mvy...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, a difference of opinion one when a dependency means Ogden is not

self-sufficient :)

Does this mean there is an in principle opposition to such dependencies?
Specifically:
 - Validatable gem
 - Paginator gem

 I for one would like to see Ogden be a completely standalone gem.  That's maybe too ambitious, but I think it's a basic enough functionality to want as few dependencies as possible, with the ideal being zero.

Judson
--
Your subnet is currently 169.254.0.0/16.  You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[Trans]

On Dec 20, 9:18 pm, "Judson Lester" <nya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 2007 4:46 PM, Mark Van De Vyver <mvy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, a difference of opinion one when a dependency means Ogden is not
> > self-sufficient :)
>
> > Does this mean there is an in principle opposition to such dependencies?
> > Specifically:
> > - Validatable gem
> > - Paginator gem
>
> I for one would like to see Ogden be a completely standalone gem. That's
> maybe too ambitious, but I think it's a basic enough functionality to want
> as few dependencies as possible, with the ideal being zero.

Zero is always the ideal, yes. There are of course exceptions. Facets
for instance is used because it proved a pool of general purpose
needs. Other dependencies may be considered too, certainly. But don't
be too hasty in siding with an external dependency. For instance this
Validatable gem. I've never seen it before so I took a look. And at
first glance, I can see how it is easy to think, "Wow, this covers all
of these validation needs already. We can just depend on it and get
all this great functionality for free." But that's a sort of an
illusion. Just because there's all this functionality there doesn't
mean it's GOOD functionality, or that it will FIT in with our system.
Indeed, in this case I think Validatable is rather a poor system. It's
a rip off from Rails; it's far more complex then it needs to be; and
it's not really all that innovative --in other words it is not KISS
nor COOL.

In any case, the point is dependencies are certainly possible, but
they will be scrutinized very very carefully.

T.
_______________________________________________
Ogden-developers mailing list
Ogden-de...@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ogden-developers

[* William]

hi all groovey people ;-)

Happy, happy joy, joy for all ...As an aside, There's a bit of semantic fog happening at least on this "thread/v01.beta'

"DEPEND" --> you just can't live without it. 

• eg.  Air, Water, iPod

"Optional" (yet needs on-of-these)

• Oddly enough I can point everyone to ::
  " IN{TER}DEPENDENCE:
  Three Letters, that Make a World of Difference" (2007); Danita Matuch;
  News and Notes; UNAA; v.33(1); Jan-2007
  www.unaansw.org.au
• The interesting piece is ...
  

"This differs distinctly from independence, which sets one group apart from another.  An interdependent relationship implies that all participants are emotionally, economically, and politically independent -- Yet still connected. " (ibid, p.3)

• For "political", consider the term "buzz word".
• For " emotional", think about "linux" or (in the old days :: BSD)
• for political ... HEY ... review the: "Robinson Crusoe" comment,
  that is a political comment.

Not that I mind.  My note is that many do not always consider the context of ideas and comments.

It isn't just-a mail issue, see the quote above.  It is a world-wide thing ;-)  The model I was taught is (oddly) from Star Wars -- Skywalker "trusts" and "depends" on his friends to deliver.

So it might be with software modules.  Myer used to talk about programming by "contract".  It is worth crystallising the ESSENCE from this discussion.  I'm sure it is much better than a pout ...

I got lucky this year.  I managed to interact with a bunch of people from outside my normal ken (context).  Pretty much what a tool like OG can do, is to allow people to think outside the square.

The "naughty" framework for radical thinking is about " and, and, and , and, ..." --ALL colours of AND.  Not a single "or" among them. That seems to define "me" at the moment, no mater how incredible it sounds, with the exception of my first office-mate (Michael Youseff), I pretty much got the " and, and, ..." bug before I got a real job.

Since that may be a bit esoteric, let me come back to "me".  It is about maths.  Make the 'conflict' into 3 or more orthogonal (metaphorical) "vectors".

• Yes
  it may take "more"(??) time/$$/Mars bars
• NO
  There is no more cost effective way

How *could* I know that?

Back to my pal Michael, who played Backgammon like a dervish -- And he said he is SLOW!  Doing it ... that is what makes "theory" and "concepts" into great Backgammon players.

Enjoy your x-Mas-mas-mas,
                                          \__W