Most any machine one makes or designs one can get so involved in that one is preoccupied with the making or the workings of that machine, one could forget there was a purpose.
Having worked to make Adj viable, in several ways, now this very moment I am not directly facing any of the enterprise software design problems that originally made me want to have Adj. I am sure some will occur sooner or later, complexity is here to stay – just try to understand your CPU chip, all its transistors, how it works, or how it is made.
This made me think though, how do others see Adj? Is Adj
- something to use, or
- something to develop?
I may have seeded doubt by using the words “Adj Framework”.
I could have called it “Adj Graphics Library“. That is what it should be for most people. Adj is supposed to enable communication about complex systems. Big drawings. Lots of detail. Better. Dynamic. Maintainable. Affordable. Ubiquitous. Contemporary?
Some people run grocery stores. I create enabling technology. Try explaining “paper” before there is paper. It tears easily, burns easily, cannot withstand water, etc. Who would want that? Try explaining the creativity paper allows to a world before paper – that might be a hard sell.
Explaining Adj before there are great examples might be difficult too. Can you make a great example for the rest of us to see?
Not knowing what you would illustrate brings to mind one advantage of Adj being open source: When running into limitations when using it, there is a lot of freedom to improve it, to extend it.
For many Adj will and should be a tool to use for illustrating systems, to illustrate complex systems, a graphics library.
To close on a simple note:
- Non-authoring users will view illustrations.
- If you are authoring using Adj, you will compose XML.