Re: OOP - a question about database access

"Tak To" <takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-> wrote in message news:o_OdnfHvYs4XXTOiRVn-jg_at_comcast.com...
> "Tak To" <takto_at_alum.mit.edu.-> wrote
> BB.5> Management is management. Selling is selling. They require
> BB.5> different skills from engineering and from building. I have
> BB.5> direct experience with excellent technology managers [...]
>
> But technical management requires knowledge and skills of both
> management _and_ technology.

My professional experiences directly contradict your assertion.

> (Again, my opinion.)

Again, supported by ignorance of anything different.

> I am skeptic
> of context free "management skills" in general.

Skepticism is good. Refusal to accept reality is not as good.

> BB.5> You may never have experienced what I have experienced, but my
> BB.5> experience contradicts and invalidates your assertion.
>
> Your experiment is different from mine so your conclusion is
> different from (or "contradicts") mine, fair enough. However,
> I don't see how your experience can "invalidate" my conclusion.

Your conclusion is based on ignorance of reality I have experienced.

> BB.5> Since your only support for your assertion amounts to
> BB.5> claiming ignorance of any contradictory information, the
> BB.5> support for your assertion is inadequate.
>
> I voiced an _opinion_; but if you claimed it is an "assertion"
> I am not going to quibble. Just bear in mind that your
> "assertion" (so far) is just as inadequately supported as mine.

I disagree. I have not based my assertion on what I have not experienced, but on what I have experienced directly.

> BB.3> You assumed that features are rooms and then the only "tasks"
> BB.3> you mentioned amounted to "add a feature". Pulling wire is
> BB.3> the equivalent of adding the wiring feature.
>
> TT.4> No, this was my analogy so I got to choose what constitutes
> TT.4> features. Here _only_rooms_ are features and "wiring" is
> TT.4> _not_ a feature. This reflects the common situation in
> TT.4> which a customer wants to organize things in his perspective.
> TT.4> You missed this point entirely.
> TT.4>
> TT.4> And if your manager tries to talk the customer into accepting
> TT.4> "wiring" as a feature, then your manager is doing exactly what
> TT.4> I say he should do, namely translating features into tasks.
>
> BB.5> And I got to decide whether the analogy is apt. The analogy
> BB.5> is inapt for the reasons I stated previously. Claiming that
> BB.5> plumbing is a task and not a feature does not change reality.
>
> The purpose of my analogy is to illustrate the disparity between
> a customer's perspective (of how things should be organized)
> from that of management.

If the analogy were apt, it might do so. Since it is inapt, it amounts to an unconvincing straw man.

> To this end my analogy is apt because
> it shows the difference clearly.

You have described a straw man and not an analogy. An analogy requires similarity for aptness. Your "analogy" compares dissimilar things on the basis of dissimilarity instead of dissimilar things on the basis of similarity.

Wiring is a good analog of a software feature. A room is a good analog of increased capacity without changing features. A house can exist without any wiring just as an application can exist without a feature. (Similar) A house cannot exist without any rooms. (Dissimilar) One can do things in a wired house one cannot do without wiring. (Similar) One can do nothing in a house with (n+1) rooms that one cannot do in a house with (n) rooms. (Dissimilar) Adding a feature to software may make no sense prior to the advent of some external resource like the internet just as wiring a house may make no sense prior to the advent of some external resource like electrical power transmission. (Similar) Adding a room cannot depend on any external resource because it increases or subdivides the space in the house with whatever resources it has. (Dissimilar)

> It appears that you have
> misunderstood the purpose of the analogy.

It appears you misunderstand the definition of "analogy". I suspect you misunderstand the purpose as well seeing as you seem to equate it with the purpose of a straw man.

> (In another message
> of you implied that the purpose of myanalogy was to illustrate
> the importance of sequencing tasks/features -- an obvious mis-
> understanding that is shared by you and Uncle Bob.)

I don't recall saying anything about the purpose of your analogy. I recall saying it was an inapt analogy.

> Are you claiming that however the customer organizes features
> they are suitable for management purpose?

If the manager must deliver features, yes, I think they are a suitable way for a manager to organize his or her deliverables.

> So if a customer
> insists on using rooms as units the manager should talk to his
> team member in terms of rooms?

If the feature is capacity, the manager should talk to his team members about capacity. For instance, the user would perceive changing the width of a numeric type from 16 bits to 32 bits as a feature to increase capacity; however, sufficient dissimilarities still exist with adding a room to render your analogy inapt.

> BB.3> Stripping a wire or fastening a conduit or connecting a
> BB.3> box is a task.
>
> TT.4> It is a task, but not necessarily at the right granular
> TT.4> level to be assigned to a team member.
>
> BB.5> You are joking, right? If not an electrician, who will
> BB.5> strip the wire? Who will fasten the conduit? Who will
> BB.5> connect the box? Who will pull the wire for that matter?
>
> I am not joking and I don't understand your objection. To
> answer your question: it is an electrician; but I fail to see
> any contradiction between that and what I have said.

In that case, your problems go much deeper than an inapt analogy, and any dialog with you is a complete waste.

> BB.5> Are you suggesting that 'add a room' is an appropriate task
> BB.5> to assign to a team member?
>
> No I am not; and if you have spent any time reading my posts you
> would have got that. Once again, what I am suggesting is that
> the manager should translate "building a set of rooms" into
> specific tasks, which btw is exactly what you say a manager
> should _not_ do.

Why would the manager do that when his technical staff can do it with greater facility? I am going to have to cite Date's _Principle of Incoherence_ at this point.

> BB.5> Will all of your team members have the following trades?
> BB.5> Carpentry, plumbing, electrical, drywalling, plastering,
> BB.5> painting, flooring, interior decoration?
>
> This question appears to be entirely irrelevant to what I
> have been saying.

I suggest it will appear entirely relevant to anyone who comprehends written english.

[remainder of Tak's nonsense snipped] Received on Mon Nov 10 2003 - 00:47:11 CET