Re: A voodoo masterpiece

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:54:06 +1100
Message-ID: <4191d70c$0$25121$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Holger Baer wrote:

> Jonathan Lewis wrote:

>> Note in-line
>> 

> "Holger Baer" <holger.baer_at_science-computing.de> wrote in message
> news:cmnnpf$eiq$1_at_news.BelWue.DE...
>
> >>
> >> But Don and Mike finally put the cards on the desk: They can't be
> >> bothered with
> >> proofing anything they gibber out, the so called "real-world
> >> phenomenom" (and
> >> in their cases that means throw hardware at it and the problem will go
> >> away)
> >> must suffice.
> >>
>
>
> > No - read Mike's comment carefully. It is a little out of context, but
> > he makes the perfectly valid statement that "proofs" undertaken on
> > a PC can break down at high loads on 'real systems'. You only have
> > to consider that PCs tend to be single-CPU systems to realise how
> > true that can be. It's why I sometimes give away free consultancy
> > time in exchange for temporary access to large-scale hardware.
>
> I tried to reread Mike's comment. However, the page seems no longer to
> exist - or maybe it will reexist on the 18th? ;-)
>

Oh, that's another Voodoo trait: sanitise the record when the record proves too embarrassing. Fortunately, I think Jonathan has saved the original.

> I agree that Mike's statement is valid,

Of course it is. My scorn was reserved for Don's 'proof is beyond stupid', not Mike's 'tests break down on big systems'.

Like you, however, I have concerns that "tests break down" should never mean "so don't bother doing any tests in the first place". I don't *think* Mike has crossed that line yet, but Don certainly appears to have done.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Nov 10 2004 - 02:54:06 CST