From: Jim Douglas (jim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 02:54:39
David Abrahams wrote:
> Beth Jacobson <bethj_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>I like your list. It's a novel way of grouping the libraries compared to
>>both mine and the existing categories, and I wonder if it might be worth
>>including as its own page, but it's not really what I'm trying to do
>>here. I've avoided the word "selling", but this is really what the page
>>is about. I'm not trying to sell the libraries (I think they can sell
>>themselves), but I am trying to sell people on the idea that it's worth
>>their time to read more about them.
> I agree that your page does that better than prior efforts.
> But I don't think we can afford to have two categorized pages,
My view is that the more categorisations the better. Beth's page deals
with a scale of simple<->complex or concrete<->abstract. This one is
classified by usage type. Both are valid and useful.
The more signs we can post that say "Entrance", "Way In" or even
"Ingress" the better (IMHO).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk