Ilija and Frankenstein
Page: 1
Recent posts in this topic
MatYadabyte
on Jul 15. 2006. 3:49 pm
I was just reading a post where Iilja said he doesn’t ant to make a Frankenstein monster out of AC by adding too many levels of complexity and feature depth and such like. He has the right attitude.
Last year we (Yadabyte) tried to develop a system that does what AC does (Ilija saw this recently) and we got petty far with it. But, it died because it became a Frankenstein. It had complex object based hierarchy, temporal properties, full history of everything, multiple project paths…. Arrrg… It became a Frankenstein and then ate itself.
But I think there is a sense in which we together need to define the extent to which AC will develop in any given direction. At the moment its supremely simple, elegant, streamlined, and everyone should want to keep it that way. But there are features that people seem to think are lacking, like Time management, task tracking and the like that are reasonable requests. Aren’t they?
I think personally that the key to these extra features has to be extensions or modules or whatever you want to call them. This way the core AC can stay streamlined and able to be used by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything without being bloated by requirements that very few people will need.
I don’t need a gant chart, some people might. I would graphical progress reporting, you might think that’s not needed. When NASA start planning shuttle missions with AC they might want some fancy analytics too:P
This is also a pretty efficient development methodology because it means that “3d hyperbolic Pie Chart realisations� (Ok, I’m being silly there) can be developed along side, but outside of, the core AC repository.
I guess this post is really asking for your pinion on this notion:
Is the best development strategy to keep AC simple, streamlined and pure whilst support additional feature spaces through modular open source extensions.o
Last year we (Yadabyte) tried to develop a system that does what AC does (Ilija saw this recently) and we got petty far with it. But, it died because it became a Frankenstein. It had complex object based hierarchy, temporal properties, full history of everything, multiple project paths…. Arrrg… It became a Frankenstein and then ate itself.
But I think there is a sense in which we together need to define the extent to which AC will develop in any given direction. At the moment its supremely simple, elegant, streamlined, and everyone should want to keep it that way. But there are features that people seem to think are lacking, like Time management, task tracking and the like that are reasonable requests. Aren’t they?
I think personally that the key to these extra features has to be extensions or modules or whatever you want to call them. This way the core AC can stay streamlined and able to be used by pretty much anyone for pretty much anything without being bloated by requirements that very few people will need.
I don’t need a gant chart, some people might. I would graphical progress reporting, you might think that’s not needed. When NASA start planning shuttle missions with AC they might want some fancy analytics too:P
This is also a pretty efficient development methodology because it means that “3d hyperbolic Pie Chart realisations� (Ok, I’m being silly there) can be developed along side, but outside of, the core AC repository.
I guess this post is really asking for your pinion on this notion:
Is the best development strategy to keep AC simple, streamlined and pure whilst support additional feature spaces through modular open source extensions.o
Totally agree. I´ve been working around with drupal. Most of the people inside that comunity understand Drupal´s succeed because of it´s clean, small code. Drupal core weights 480kb. The module architecture let´s you do anything without hacking the core and allowing espontaneus develpment in any direction.
One vote for extreme simplicity.
rlbravo
One vote for extreme simplicity.
rlbravo
forrest2828
on Jul 16. 2006. 2:39 pm
Another vote here.
Simplicity with style, elegance, and lots of extensions / modules / add-on (like Vanilla) and yet keep aC's core un-bloated would be great.
My 2 cents
Simplicity with style, elegance, and lots of extensions / modules / add-on (like Vanilla) and yet keep aC's core un-bloated would be great.
My 2 cents
Staff
Ilija Studen
on Jul 16. 2006. 3:42 pm
That is the plan, to keep the standard installation simple and functional with features that most of the people need (95%+) and to add additional features as plugins, through API etc.
Please note that building extensible system is not easy. Trust me on that. I'll need to check out how other apps are doing it but to keep modular architecture where modules can interact on high level is far from easy.
Please note that building extensible system is not easy. Trust me on that. I'll need to check out how other apps are doing it but to keep modular architecture where modules can interact on high level is far from easy.
activeCollab Team Member | Experiment: activeCollab on Twitter
forrest2828
on Jul 16. 2006. 4:05 pm
Ilija I want to thank you personally for your kind help when i had trouble installing on my host. It is all ok now!
Topic is locked. If you have something important to say about issues discussed on this page please write at hi@a51dev.com.
