"Andreas Huber" <ahd6974-spamgroupstrap@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cm2io7$i7v$1@sea.gmane.org...
Johan Nilsson wrote:
I'm mostly a lurker here, but even so I believe I've seen people from time to time declaring their willingness to participate in developing a new library, without getting some real response. Take them in, let them be a part of the effort, and maybe the NIH problem will be lessened.
I'm rather skeptical about that approach. Groups of similarly capable people are usually not very good at *designing* a library (unless there's a boss who has the last word on all the decisions).
So you mean that a single capable person beats a group of capable people?
No, not in general. I just think that intuition, IMO the primary ingredient in the initial design phase, isn't something that can easily be spread over multiple brains. You can surely collect requirements, opinions, etc. from a group, but I've never seen a coherent design spring from more than one mind at the same time.
I must agree on the coherency stuff. Perhaps our definition of what should go into a *draft* design is what makes our opinions differ.
I realize that having a group of people trying to work out a design across the internet might not be feasible, but generally I still think that having a group of people together in the same room, preferrably at a white board, beats a single person.
I've worked quite some time in so-called "architecture teams", where multiple people sitting in one room try to design something.
(as a side-note: I'm not too fond of the term "architecture teams". Everyone should be allowed to be an architect, if they like to and can add some value to the process.) In almost
all cases, it was an individual who had a good idea and then convinced the rest of us. Sometimes, a good idea of one inidividual sparked an even better idea in another individual, but I've only seen that happening a couple of times. It is questionable whether the initial inventor wouldn't have had the better idea himself, only a little later, e.g. while working out the details.
It is much too easy locking yourself into a single mindset when you work alone at the drawing board. This is why I heartily supports the idea of discussing the design openly, collecting the feedback and ideas - before putting so much time into developing and refining the library that it feels like so much work has gone into the library that one doesn't wan't to give up the design.
I agree, that's why I think that an individual should work out a draft design all by himself and then present it to the group. After the group has responded she can go back and resolve the raised issues and refine the design. Depending on the complexity of the library, it usually takes several such rounds before the design is reasonably complete.
Again - what goes into a "design"? Must a draft design really include a fully compilable, usable library? Couldn't it just definition of concepts, overall design and suggestions for detailed implementation (perhaps proof-of-concept code where deemed necessary)? // Johan