Re: What databases have taught me

From: topmind <>
Date: 11 Jul 2006 16:42:01 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > topmind wrote:
> >
> >> Tony D wrote:
> >>
> >>> topmind wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Tony D wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> without resorting to stuffing
> >>>>> some more-or-less random test cases through it as some kind of
> >>>>> demonstration that it kind-of, maybe, perhaps does what we want it to,
> >>>>> for these semi-random test cases at least ?"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I have kicked around approaches to measure the code impact of various
> >>>> change scenarios. The problem is that people also perceive change
> >>>> differently, I've found out, such that they would assign different
> >>>> frequency estimates, which were required to get a total score.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Exactly. You've "kicked around approaches to measure the code impact of
> >>> various change scenarios". But without being able to formally reason
> >>> about behaviour in the abstract, before a piece of code is even
> >>> written, you're fighting a losing battle, making more-or-less educated
> >>> guesses.
> >>
> >>
> >> Again, it is not clear to me what you are proposing. Formal proving is
> >> not a common industry practice.
> >
> >
> > And your point would be? You seem to be trying to make a claim about
> > computing science, but you measure that by the properties of industry
> > practice. Given that many of us think the state of the industry is
> > appalling and characterized mostly by ignorance, misconception and
> > anti-intellectualism, you won't convince many of us with that sort of
> > non sequitur.


> Bob,

> "topmind" is our pet crank here on comp.object. He has a great record of
> asserting things without being able to back them with anything else than
> "I don't know why but it is so"

This is bull. The only thing I said that about is why change patterns happen a certain way in biz apps. Answering that would probably require deep psychological analysis of marketers, lawmakers, and upper management. I don't understand their psychology and will readily admit that. I can only observe the patterns of changes of mind, not explain them. This is what I get for admitting that I don't know everything. One of the key aspects of business modeling is that you end up modeling personalities of decision makers far more than modeling say laws of nature such as chemistry, geometry, etc. The latter would make life a lot easier.

If you know how business and marketing minds work, by all means write a fricken book. (Some recommend the Dilbert series, but that only shows non-working minds, which may be accurate after all.)

>, then challenging the others to prove

> him wrong, then dismissing answers as either "lab example" (implied :
> can't work in real life)

Perhaps you have been guilty of using a lab example where it was not appropriate and now feal guilty about it?

> or "irrelevant to it's own 'niche'" (which is
> defined as "custom biz apps", whatever this may mean).

So? X being good at domain Y does not automatically mean it will be good in domain Z.

> FWIW, he admitted
> believing RM was "a brass-bullet" (while not believing in silver-bullet...)

Is this a sin?

> --
> bruno desthuilliers

-T- Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 01:42:01 CEST

Original text of this message