Re: [Corelinux-public] reviving the naming discussion

[Dan G. <goh...@mr...>]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 03:03:58PM -0400, Frank V. Castellucci wrote:
> Dan,
> 
> I agree with your posits, but not completely. The original idea for THIS
> project was to exploit a specific platform, it's api, etc. to base an
> advanced class library suite. the "What is not our intent" was to not
> get mired into endless discussions on multi-platform churn.

It looks like there's two distinct goals here. One one hand, the
CoreLinux++ web site talks about working to support GoF patterns, coding
standards and conventions, the ISO 14882 standard, and framework
components for supporting generic design. On the other, the site talks
about writing wrappers around kernel facilities, and excluding support
for any non-Linux platform so that performance can be maximized.

The first of these is very useful and has a very broad scope of
applicability. It also has nothing to do with any particular kernel,
doesn't need kernel-specific performance tuning, and by nature
shouldn't generate much multi-platform churning in any of its
development phases.

The second of these has a more limited scope of applicability. For
many projects, supporting multiple platforms is a requirement, and
if CoreLinux++, as its name and web site suggest, requires Linux, then
whatever performance gains or development principles it sports won't
matter.

> Furthermore, on the OOD comment, by the time you are designing you have
> wed the artifacts of architecture and analysis to the language of choice
> as well as the platforms. In fact, the platforms are usually identified
> in the high level architectures, the patterns in analysis, the language
> and api in design.
> 
> Should I assume you meant Architecture and OOA?

It seems we have differing definitions of the word design. I probably
did mean Architecture and OOA. Please have patience with a student from
a different school :-).

> 
> Frank V. Castellucci
> 
> Dan Gohman wrote:
> 
> > I noticed there was a thread on this list a while ago discussing the
> > name of this project. From reading the archives, it seems that there
> > were misunderstandings.
> >
> > When I first discovered CoreLinux++, I was interested in a lot of
> > the goals of the project, but I was quickly scared off by words like
> > this:
> >
> >   What is not our intent?
> >
> >   Not to be written for portability, but for exploitation
> >   of the Linux operating system enabling all that it has to offer
> >   to optimize performance.
> >
> > This is a very surprising position, as it is contradictory to the
> > goals stated on the rest of the site.
> >
> > One of the most prominant places this exists is in the name of the
> > project, CoreLinux++. One reason some people don't like this
> > name is that, contrary to what good OOD prinicples would
> > recommend, it focuses on a specific implementation detail instead
> > of on the interface and its functionality.
> >
> > I realize that the developers are focusing on and developing on
> > a certain platform, and this is fine. The project should not,
> > however, exclude the possibility of someone else implementing
> > various parts of the library on other platforms.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > --
> > Dan Gohman
> > goh...@mr...
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Corelinux-public mailing list
> > Cor...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/corelinux-public
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Corelinux-public mailing list
> Cor...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/corelinux-public

-- 
Dan Gohman
goh...@mr...