[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
APD format -- or What's buggin you ain't what's buggin him
- To: Aquatic Plants Digest Messages <Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com>
- Subject: APD format -- or What's buggin you ain't what's buggin him
- From: "S. Hieber" <shieber at yahoo_com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 07:54:12 -0700 (PDT)
This post is about the APD, not about plants.
Matt said, in part:
"I don't see any increased cost to
making the APD available in both Digest & Non-Digest
formats. Whatever bit
of software is used to run the APD is almost certainly
capable of dealing
out messages in both formats. We shouldn't have to choose
one or the other
across the board, the choice should be up to the individual
That might be true. But my experience is that software is
always more work than you think it will be no matter how
much you think it will be.
It sort of follows from Scott's Law (no relation) for
Software Programming: 90% of the project time will be
spent writing the code and 90% will be spent debugging it.
It's that second 90% that really bites the resources.
Perhaps no code needs to be written nor bought to add a
single mode to APD, but I'll wager it involves more than
just flipping a virtual switch. Also, just adding single
mode to batch mode, while it will satisfy some (which might
make it worthwhile), won't satisfy others.
I'd trade either mode for a better search engine, but I try
not to complain too much (moi?) And I try to keep in mind
that I haven't eaten one penny of the cost of providing
Scott H., who spends the third 90% writing errorhandlers.
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.