Dynamic Alternatives

Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 16:52:30 -0800

Mr. Morris E. Jones
Business Unit Manager
Cable Network Operation
Intel Corporation
350 East Plumeria; Mail Stop CHP3-105
San Jose, CA 95124

Subject:   SDS upgrade


Rod has talked with you about the possibility that I might help with completing the task of converting MEDIT to C using the Windows model to increase file sizes, etc.

Before I commit to this, however, I wanted to discuss several of the issues that I see involved.

Why don't you do it yourself?

Rod speaks glowingly of your capabilities. You wrote the program in the first place and started on the C version.

A reasonable question is, therefore, why aren't you doing the rewrite yourself? You are clearly far better qualified than any newcomer can be.

Also, a major part of the attraction to doing this at all is the possibility of collaborating with someone from whom I stand to learn a great deal. If you don't have time to work the problem, it is likely that you will also be short on time to collaborate on the work, thus losing a major attraction for me.

You don't use SDS yourself?

According to Rod you started to use SDS at some point and gave it up. May I ask why?

At the moment, it seems that Rod may be the only person who can use SDS effectively.

Project goals (as I see them)

Rod believes that the objective is to rewrite the existing MEDIT, including the macro language, in C, and thus have SDS move with the conversion.

First, is a direct rewrite adequate? Any time I have set about to rewrite a program, there have been numerous things that I wanted new or to do differently. I assume that MEDIT is no different.

Is MEDIT of interest beyond the fact that it supports SDS? Do you have plans for it that would levy additional requirements on the next version?

Even assuming that an editor is the place to start in reconstructing SDS, is MEDIT the best starting point? There are several commercial editors that support a wide variety of scripting languages, compiled languages or even DLL's to enhance the editor. Wouldn't this save a substantial amount of energy in development?

There is also the possibility of treating the current version of SDS as a "proof of concept", as the "prototype to throw away". Perhaps it would be better to start with the current program as requirements and redevelop SDS from scratch.

My status

I do not have much in the way of free time, and it is getting worse. My current contract will end within a few months at most, and I need to try again to establish a source of income.. Any effort I undertake on SDS will be done rather slowly.

I am not looking forward to going back to C, even with Windows. I would really rather look more toward the future than the past.

Do you have any insights into either SDS or the rewrite problem that would shed more light on the subject?



Dynamic Alternatives

Garold L. Johnson

Copy to:

  1. Rod Welch, rowelch@attglobal.net