[exprla-devel] Re: [XPL] strengths and weaknesses

[reid_spencer <ras...@re...>]

--- In xpl-dev@y..., Jonathan Burns <saski@w...> wrote:
Kurt Cagle wrote:

>  Richard,
>
> I'd dare say that simply keeping things organized around here is a
> better
> strength than many of us bring to this table -- you're doing good 
with
> it,
> and you're insight will carry you far.
>

Hear, hear!

> For myself,
> Strengths -- working with most scripting technologies since the 
early
> 1980s,
> both client and server, a multimedia background, grounding in 
systems
> theory, complex analysis and chaos, and in general a fairly broad
> overview
> of programming principles and practices. Interest in both human and
> computer
> based languages, semantics, and philosophy.  Writes pretty good
> science
> fiction and draws a sexy mermaid.
>
> Weaknesses -- not well organized (what do you expect, I study 
chaos!),
>
> database skills at the basic SQL level (I could tell you what a
> trigger was,
> but would have to look up its syntax to write one), no formal 
training
> as a
> computer programmer (which may or may not be a weakness), tendency 
to
> overcommit to projects.
>
> Kurt Cagle

Hmmm.

Strengths - background in mathematics (good for logical relationships)
and physics
(good for analogies). Long-term (25 years) interest in programming
languages.
Survivor of middle-era OOP disputes, and current contributor to 
Pattern
Languages
of Programming discussion group. Solid grounding in C/C++. Experience,
mostly
amateur, with a dozen languages. 8 years as university tutor, spec.
digital logic
and assembler programming. Plain English. Reasonably shrewd estimator 
of
how much
longer everything takes, and how much more it oosts. Fierce believer 
in
power of
skill combinations in small groups.

Weaknesses - gaps in databases, and communications protocols. Sketchy
Web techs
knowledge. Maker of mountains from molehills. Subject to bouts of
despair.

I actually think we've got a very good team already - at least for
purposes of
establishing goals and writing up design principles. It will take
stamina, though.
I'm certain there will be issues we have to go over and over again, 
and
we'll
probably feel we've sweated blood over every document we produce.

Put it this way. We're already on the edge of The international
standards community
for XML technologies. What we can find out, by mining and studying the
W3C and
XML-DEV literature, will bring us level with the most experienced
workers in the
field, quite soon - just as Kurt promised. Not many people get this 
kind
of opportunity.


Hey, Richard.

Those are good skills. And you left out the neurology, which I don't
think is
insignificant in the least.

Both of us need a deeper XML background. Beyond that, your DB 
knowledge
complements
my programming history. Skills like those make it worthwhile for Kurt 
to
spend
attention on this group. Michael is getting into end-applications
research. And the
others, as far as I can see, have a pretty good grip on relevant 
topics.
Nobody's
wasting space here.

I note that your researches have brought both Groves and WorldOS into
the framework
of discussion. Spot on target.

Nobody begrudges time spent with your girlfriend.

And when it comes to self-doubt, I guess I can still take the likes of
you on points.

:-)

Seeya
Jonathan

but look who follows in my train a desert ant a tamerlane
who ate a pyramid in half that he might get at and devour
the mummies of six hundred kings who in remote antiquity
stepped on and crushed ancestors of his

- archy's life of mehitabel
--- End forwarded message ---