Craig Latta wrote:
>      I certainly agree that any successful modularization strategy
> includes ugly grunt work (I'm doing it too). But I think Andreas said
> more than that: that the fitness of Spoon's tools for this task can only
> be evaluated when the task is finished. If everyone held that view, then
> no one would  use Spoon's tools for the task. It seems to imply that I,
> Craig, must disentangle the entire system before it's worth anyone
> else's while to use Spoon. I don't think this is true.

And I don't think it's fair to accuse me of that. What I said is that 
"if [spoon is being followed as the *only* path], I'd say that I'll 
answer that question once I've seen the first system that has been built 
that way ;-) " - with an "if" at the beginning and a smiley at the end.

More specifically, what I'm saying is that we should base our judgment 
of ideas on observable evidence rather than faith. In other words try to 
be a bit scientific. It doesn't mean that you have to disentangle an 
entire image any more than it means for the traits-people that they have 
to traitify an entire image. However, providing practical examples to 
look at, evaluate, learn from is absolutely critical. Blindly buying 
into theories, no matter how good they sound initially, sets us up for 
another desaster - I had great hopes for Henrik's theory of universal 
composition; I had great hopes for traits. Both turned out to be quite 
underwhelming in practice.

Cheers,
   - Andreas