Trans wrote:
I'm trying to codify some of these "things".
s/codify/clarify/ ?
Codifying gets you to where we are now, with terms, though useful to
insiders, that are too terse for decoding by nonspecialists. Clarifying is
what you seem to be after.
So it isn't actaully
padantic at all.
s/padantic/pedantic/ !
Also clearify terminology helps discussion.
s/ ... what?
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
/ ...
I would say that the distinguishing feature of a Framework is that it
has an overall structure, such as an event loop, which calls back into
the code developed on top of the framework. A GUI library would
typically fit this pattern.
Fair enough. I was thinking of Framework in more general terms, like the
overall design pattern kind of framework. Not necessarily associated with
GUI design tools.
I say this because I heard the term framework used in this way before there
was a GUI anything.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus wrote:
Trans wrote:
> I'm trying to codify some of these "things".
s/codify/clarify/ ?
Codifying gets you to where we are now, with terms, though useful to
insiders, that are too terse for decoding by nonspecialists. Clarifying is
what you seem to be after.
I mean codify, as in create a program:
class Library
...
end
> So it isn't actaully
> padantic at all.s/padantic/pedantic/ !
Yea, well, "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word
one way." --Mark Twain
> Also clearify terminology helps discussion.
s/ ... what?
Also clarifying terminology helps discussion.
T.
Trans wrote:
Paul Lutus wrote:
Trans wrote:
> I'm trying to codify some of these "things".
s/codify/clarify/ ?
Codifying gets you to where we are now, with terms, though useful to
insiders, that are too terse for decoding by nonspecialists. Clarifying
is what you seem to be after.I mean codify, as in create a program:
Yes, I understand. That was my interpretation also. Programs are not
necessarily meant to clarify -- they are applications, not elucidations.
> So it isn't actaully
> padantic at all.s/padantic/pedantic/ !
Yea, well, "I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word
one way." --Mark Twain
Nice quote, but it does seem to conflict with the goal of clarification.
> Also clearify terminology helps discussion.
s/ ... what?
Also clarifying terminology helps discussion.
Sometimes.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Trans wrote:
Also clarifying terminology helps discussion.
All right, now I feel guilty for derailing the thread.
Application
A set of executable code with a human interface -- command-line or GUI.
Program
A more general term than application. A set of executable code which requires a human to "start it" (so, not a device driver), but might not have a human interface after that.
Library
A set of executable code with no human interface, an exposed code interface, a theme of some sort.
Toolkit
Larger in scope than a library, and, I guess, also includes some programs. Say, a windowing toolkit, which includes an app for generating resource files.
Framework
A set of executable code that takes control of the main event loop, and to some extent dictates the structure of your code. Usually includes library code (and that's usually the reason you use it), though of a much wider scope than a library (e.g. "full-stack").
Package
1. Collection of files.
2. Something that The Todd is quite fond of.
Project
A set of goals + at least one doer at any time (may not be the same over time).
T.
Mostly, though, I'll use a lot of these terms interchangeably. Why are you codifying this? Is there not a more general approach you can take?
Devin
All right, now I feel guilty for derailing the thread.
Application
The things I keep filling out but not getting callbacks on.
Program
The thing people keep telling me to "get with".
Library
The place where I make copies of my resume. They have books too!
Toolkit
The thing my dad keeps telling me to get, if I want a real job.
Framework
My dad builds these using a toolkit, I presume.
Package
Last layoff, I think this was about a week's pay for every year with
the company.
Project
What, me projecting?
Ooh, a couple other easy ones that follow:
* client -- If I'm consulting, I guess I need these.
* server -- What pays the bills while looking for clients.
Badda-bing! 
---John
On 9/24/06, Devin Mullins <twifkak@comcast.net> wrote:
Devin Mullins wrote:
Trans wrote:
> Also clarifying terminology helps discussion.All right, now I feel guilty for derailing the thread.
Application
A set of executable code with a human interface -- command-line or GUI.Program
A more general term than application. A set of executable code which
requires a human to "start it" (so, not a device driver), but might not
have a human interface after that.Library
A set of executable code with no human interface, an exposed code
interface, a theme of some sort.Toolkit
Larger in scope than a library, and, I guess, also includes some
programs. Say, a windowing toolkit, which includes an app for generating
resource files.Framework
A set of executable code that takes control of the main event loop, and
to some extent dictates the structure of your code. Usually includes
library code (and that's usually the reason you use it), though of a
much wider scope than a library (e.g. "full-stack").Package
1. Collection of files.
2. Something that The Todd is quite fond of.Project
A set of goals + at least one doer at any time (may not be the same over
time).> T.
Mostly, though, I'll use a lot of these terms interchangeably. Why are
you codifying this? Is there not a more general approach you can take?
A Project Management Application, i.e. Build Tool. Partly I'm just just
curious but I am also wrestling with one naming issue so I thought it
might help to ask. I have a Project class which contains methods for
acting upon a... er... "Program" (?), and a Library class for utilzing
"it". Both share much of the same "metadata" so they both delegate to
another class which stores that. Don't know what to name that class
though. Right now it's called er... well... Program 
But then again
maybe I haven't named any of them optimally. For instance, I was
suprised to see UML refer to what I would call a "library" as a
"package".
T.