From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-24 15:42:52
on Sun Jun 24 2007, Joel de Guzman <joel-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
>> "Joel de Guzman" <joel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> I. quickbook as documentation media.
>>> And it *is* easy to support.
>> It's easy now, when you've got very limited number of users. This will
>> change with widespread application of this format. And to be completely
>> frank with you how easy it is to support the tools for you is comparatively
>> minor part of my concern. After all it's your own decision. The fact
>> remains: someone need to support it. Someone need to test it. Someone need
>> to documents it.
> So what? All tools need documentation and support. It just so
> happens that this tool is homegrown. You can argue that we are not
> in this business. Fine. That's your opinion. I find Quickbook
> useful. I will continue to support it. Many more find it useful
> too. I'm glad to be of service. It just so happens that I am a
> booster, but I would have done the same even if I was an outsider,
> if boost finds my tool useful.
The only places I can imagine a conclusion that "we're not in the
tools business" leading are:
* we don't start any new tool projects
* we remove the tools we do have from boost. They can still be
supported elsewhere by the same people.
I'm not suggesting we do either of these things. I'm just pointing
out that whether or not Boost is in the tool business ultimately has
no bearing on which tools we end up using.
>> And what about these:
>> Do you support quickbook documents validation?
> Does a car have wings?
>> Do you plan to invent schema language?
> Does a bike have turbo-chargers?
His questions seem reasonable to me, and I think QuickBook has
reasonable answers for them.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk