Greg commented:
> Topic tags:[Arch][Wiring][Doc][HW][PM]
> I am not trying to make an argument against Ant here. I am
> trying to make an
> argument against unnecessary complications in the build step just
> because.
> Tools that provide automation become crutches quickly, and if you
> don't think
> about what you're doing, you can create such a dependency that
> suddenly your
> software architecture and many other things are suddenly governed by the
> tools, instead of the tools facilitating a good architecture...
>
> -----
> gr...@cy... (Cyte Technologies Inc)
>
I tend to agree with Gregg and his desire to keep the architecture simple
enough as to preclude the requirement for a tool- dependent build process.
As successful as J2EE is, the development cycle is frustratingly complex,
slow, error prone and difficult to debug. With J2EE the requirements for
ultimate scalability and performance overrode any developer friendly
considerations. It has taken hold and the tools are catching up but I think
that we should consider that it has had the weight of SUN, IBM, Netscape,
BEA etc behind it as well as a large void in the market. We are not likely
to find ourselves in that position.
Embedded systems are currently specked, designed and deployed by hardware
oriented engineers who like to see their bits twiddle. Their current cycle
involves: code, compile/link, load and debug... complex enough but
understandable and debug-gable at the source level. Adding several levels to
this, including a code generator is likely to meet some stiff resistance.
Chris Smith
OopScope
|
