Re: [boost] [website] Proposal for new page - Libraries By Type

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 09:39:05

Jim Douglas <jim_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.  
>
> Seconded...
>
>> 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).

Only if they're clearly marked for what they mean.  Beth's page deals
with at least 3 axes: simple<->complex (implementation, or for the
user?), concrete<->abstract, and functional categorization.  If we
have 50 entrances and they're poorly distinguished from one another it
will only look more confusing.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com