nALFS programming details
jwrober at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Aug 10 18:25:02 PDT 2004
Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> James Robertson wrote:
>> I have seen too many development projects go to crap because the team
>> did not think the whole pie out before hacking out code. If we get
>> the whole set of features/requirements down on [virtual] paper with
>> details as to what we are thinking about, this will really help us
>> down the road.
> This is true, but we also have to realize that since this is a volunteer
> effort there is only so far we will be able to take the analysis before
> it's time to start building testcases and demonstration programs.
> We don't have the luxury (burden) of working as part of a contracted
> development team where we must follow a rigid path from requirements
> analysis to implementation... that's both good and bad.
I agree, but I still think we need to noodle this a bit more before
selection of programming language, libraries, etc, for the real "go".
Demos and testbeds can be done in anything like you said and can start
now AFAIAC. I am all for that.
>> With this information in hand, we can come up with a clear roadmap as
>> to what happens when, what programming language will be used,
>> toolsets/libraries selected to fit our needs. We can use scripting
>> languages (like what Kevin said) to build quickie proof of concept
>> stuff to help flesh out our ideas, but those would happen during the
>> requirements definition phase. Some scripting languages could be used
>> later for different clients, but that is not really an issue - what is
>> an issue is having a clearly defined direction that we all agree on
>> before writing any real code.
More information about the alfs-discuss