> This makes me conclude that you either 1) have a breakthrough solution
> will change the way we use computers and live our lives, or 2) have an
> approach to the problem (like countless others in this industry) that
> really gotten us anywhere. Nothing personal. My understanding of the
> Feyerabend Project is that they are motivated by the latter.
I think there are usually more answers to a question than its extremes.
Between the 1) and 2) that you mentioned above are a spectrum of
valuable contributations that we should try and avoid bulk-labeling.
Instead, consider rhe fact that each solution presents a balancing of some
and imbalances others, much like a pattern itself.
> 1. What precisely do you mean by "grammar-oriented object design"?
> 2. What are the terms in a domain-specific business language
> described in terms of?
Check out some of papers and the link to GOOD on my web page at
> I would also be interested in what some of your experiences at IBM GS are
> applying this in your engagements, and whether you were able to figure out
> way to justify its ROI to your sponsors.
Sure. Application in enagagements has been going on for some while (since
I don't even mention WHAT we are doing (labeling it) versus "just doing it";
applying the methods
and techniques to get results.
But we can take that offline.