[Chandler-dev] fluid and unconstrained requirements

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 11:38 AM 2/29/2008 -0500, Prajwal Kaflê wrote:
>I'm sure you guys read both a lot of negative and positive things 
>about Chandler. My purpose is not to bring out any negative feelings 
>but to just ask have an open discussion.
>
>I was reading some blogs about Chandler and the overlapping theme in 
>a lot of them seem to be like the one I read below. Is there any 
>validity to it? What have we done to address it?

If you mean his suggestion that using a dynamic language is a bad 
idea when requirements are unstable, I'd say there is absolutely no 
validity to it whatsoever.  In my opinion, it's a ludicrous 
troll.  (Which is really disappointing, because I expect better from 
that author - his past writings on the "Architecture of 
Participation" have been an inspiration for many aspects of the past 
and future Chandler desktop plugin architecture.)

If on the other hand you're referring to the idea that it's difficult 
to develop software when requirements aren't well-defined, then yes, 
that's a valid and well-understood problem.  And if you've read my 
blog or the OSAF blog lately, you'll find lots of information on 
what's been done (and is being done) about that with respect to Chandler.