Re: OOP - a question about database access

From: Tak To <takto_at_alum.mit.edu.->
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:11:20 -0500
Message-ID: <7tmdnQS7mfL_pDKi4p2dnA_at_comcast.com>

Bob Badour wrote:
BB.7> My professional experiences directly contradict your assertion.

Which is what? (Trick question: you have to actually read what I have written in order to answer the question, and evidently you don't.)

Note very well once again what I called technical management might not be what you called technical management.

• -----

BB.5> You may never have experienced what I have experienced, but my BB.5> experience contradicts and invalidates your assertion.

TT.6> Your experiment is different from mine so your conclusion is
TT.6> different from (or "contradicts") mine, fair enough.  However,
TT.6> I don't see how your experience can "invalidate" my conclusion.

BB.7> Your conclusion is based on ignorance of reality I have BB.7> experienced.

I don't need to know everything in order to draw a conclusion, unless I claim universality. Where did I do that? Remember, it was you who claimed every manager is competent.

Let's examine your counter-assertion. You said you have met some technical managers who did not know technology and _in_ _your_opinion_, they managed quite well. Since when has _your_ _opinion_ become accepted truth? Because your counter-assertion is based on your opinion, it is, well, just another of your opinion.

And haven't I made allowance for the rare (in my experience) cases in which the customer's perspective co-incides with management's?

• -----

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.

TT.6> I voiced an _opinion_; but if you claimed it is an "assertion"

TT.6> I am not going to quibble. Just bear in mind that your TT.6> "assertion" (so far) is just as inadequately supported as mine.

BB.7> I disagree. I have not based my assertion on what I have not BB.7> experienced, but on what I have experienced directly.

Oh yeah? What do you call your claim that my analogy is a strawman? Doesn't "strawman" imply that you think the situation is rare or impropable -- i.e., because you have not experienced enough of this kind of situation?

Besides, remember that since I did not claim universality, your experience does not necessarily invalidates my opinion.

• -----

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.

TT.6> The purpose of my analogy is to illustrate the disparity between

TT.6> a customer's perspective (of how things should be organized) TT.6> from that of management.

BB.7> If the analogy were apt, it might do so. Since it is inapt, BB.7> it amounts to an unconvincing straw man.

Inapt in what sense?

TT.6> To this end my analogy is apt because it shows the difference TT.6> clearly.

BB.7> You have described a straw man and not an analogy. An analogy
BB.7> requires similarity for aptness.  Your "analogy" compares
BB.7> dissimilar things on the basis of dissimilarity instead
BB.7> of dissimilar things on the basis of similarity.

In other words, just another of your opinion.

BB.7> Wiring is a good analog of a software feature. A room is a good
BB.7> analog of increased capacity without changing features. A house
BB.7> can exist without any wiring just as an application can exist
BB.7> without a feature. (Similar)  A house cannot exist without any
BB.7> rooms. (Dissimilar)

Not an actual house that people other than the likes of the Unabomber want to live in. Talk about being unrealistic; talk about using a strawman.

But this is besides the point. It is the customer who decides what he calls a feature, not you.

BB.7> One can do things in a wired house one cannot do without wiring.
BB.7> (Similar) One can do nothing in a house with (n+1) rooms that
BB.7> one cannot do in a house with (n) rooms. (Dissimilar)

It is not a matter of can or cannot. The customer _wants_ a separate room for each member of the house to discharge his bodily waste.

BB.7> Adding a feature to software may make no sense prior to the
BB.7> advent of some external resource like the internet just as
BB.7> wiring a house may make no sense prior to the advent of some
BB.7> external resource like electrical power transmission. (Similar)

So? I have never said whether your analogy is apt or not. I am simply not interested in your analogy since you have never drawn any conclusion from your analogy. FWIW, I agree that _some_ customer might consider wiring a feature, but one cannot claim that _all_ customers consider wiring a feature.

BB.7> Adding a room cannot depend on any external resource
BB.7> because it increases or subdivides the space in the house
BB.7> with whatever resources it has. (Dissimilar)

No, adding a toilet room requires external sewage or sceptic tank hookup.

But, enough of these quibbles over the similarities and dissimilarities. "Analogous" does not mean "identical"; so there is bound to be thousands of dissimilarities in addition to the thousands of similarities. However, these dissimilarities do _not_ matter unless they are related to the purpose (i.e., conclusion) of the analogy.

Since your criticism of my analogy completely ignore its purpose, it is entirely aimless.

• -----

TT.6> It appears that you have misunderstood the purpose of the TT.6> analogy.

BB.7> It appears you misunderstand the definition of "analogy". I
BB.7> suspect you misunderstand the purpose as well seeing as you
BB.7> seem to equate it with the purpose of a straw man.

I think it is self-evident who does not understand what an analogy is.

An analogy could be a strawman if the situation specified by the analogy is rare or improbable. And my experience backs me up that this situation (namely that the features specified by the customer do not map naturally into tasks) is common enough. Your lack of similar experience does not mean that I am wrong.

• -----

TT.6> (In another message
TT.6> of you implied that the purpose of myanalogy was to illustrate
TT.6> the importance of sequencing tasks/features -- an obvious mis-
TT.6> understanding that is shared by you and Uncle Bob.)

BB.7> I don't recall saying anything about the purpose of your BB.7> analogy. I recall saying it was an inapt analogy.

Inapt for what? Here we go again.

• -----

TT.6> Are you claiming that however the customer organizes features TT.6> they are suitable for management purpose?

BB.7> If the manager must deliver features, yes, I think they are a BB.7> suitable way for a manager to organize his or her deliverables.

Suitable for keeping track of the progress of the project?? (Note well, I have never mentioned "deliverables". I said "features" all along.)

TT.6> So if a customer insists on using rooms as units the manager TT.6> should talk to his team member in terms of rooms?

BB.7> If the feature is capacity, the manager should talk to his
BB.7> team members about capacity. For instance, the user would
BB.7> perceive changing the width of a numeric type from 16 bits to
BB.7> 32 bits as a feature to increase capacity; however, sufficient
BB.7> dissimilarities still exist with adding a room to render
BB.7> your analogy inapt.

So the answer is you don't have an answer for my question.

• -----

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?

TT.6> I am not joking and I don't understand your objection.  To

TT.6> answer your question: it is an electrician; but I fail to TT.6> see any contradiction between that and what I have said.

BB.7> In that case, your problems go much deeper than an inapt BB.7> analogy, and any dialog with you is a complete waste.

Whatever makes you happy, pal.

• -----

BB.5> Are you suggesting that 'add a room' is an appropriate task BB.5> to assign to a team member?

TT.6> No I am not; and if you have spent any time reading my posts
TT.6> you would have got that.  Once again, what I am suggesting is
TT.6> that the manager should translate "building a set of rooms" into
TT.6> specific tasks, which btw is exactly what you say a manager
TT.6> should _not_ do.

BB.7> Why would the manager do that when his technical staff can do

BB.7> it with greater facility? I am going to have to cite Date's BB.7> _Principle of Incoherence_ at this point.

Why are you assuming that, using the analogy, an electrician knows how to build any particular room of a house?

And if you insist on not using the analogy: why are you assuming that features (as defined by the customer) divide neatly into the respective expertise of the individual team members?

• -----

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?

TT.6> This question appears to be entirely irrelevant to what I TT.6> have been saying.

BB.7> I suggest it will appear entirely relevant to anyone who BB.7> comprehends written english.

Well, if you insist, the answer is "not necessarily". Team members may have different expertise. Now make your point.

• -----

BB.7> [remainder of Tak's nonsense snipped]

Gee. And this is from one who claims all managers are competent (and thinks that disagreeing with this amounts to claiming that all managers are incompetent).

• -----

Tak Received on Mon Nov 10 2003 - 08:11:20 CET