Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!rat!vlsisj!davidc
From: davidc@vlsisj.uucp (David Chapman)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Negative Reaction to OOT
Message-ID: <1991May17.031756.5968@vlsisj.uucp>
Date: 17 May 91 03:17:56 GMT
References: <10954@rama.UUCP> <1991May15.193212.29506@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991May16.001902.19888@netcom.COM>
Sender: usenet@vlsisj.uucp (Usenet News)
Reply-To: davidc@vlsisj.uucp (David Chapman)
Distribution: na
Organization: Compass Design Automation   San Jose, California
Lines: 19


In article <1991May16.001902.19888@netcom.COM>, jls@netcom.COM (Jim
Showalter) writes:
|> An architecture needs to be prototyped, just like anything else. The
|> initial design of the architecture is theory; the initial prototype
|> is experiment. For large projects with complex architectures, it is
|> reasonable to make a number of successively better passes at the
|> architecture, each with a refined prototype. This is NOT a waste of
|> money or an unecessary delay--it is the only way I'm aware of to
|> stand any reasonable chance of success.

Here's another, perhaps more pithy, way of saying what Jim just said:

If you don't build a prototype you end up shipping one.

                David Chapman

{known world}!decwrl!vlsisj!davidc
vlsisj!davidc@decwrl.dec.com