Re: What databases have taught me
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:17:32 GMT
Message-ID: <wL5tg.9398$pu3.214465_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
topmind wrote:
> 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.
I have been aware of topmind for many years. While I don't always agree with him, he exhibits none of the psychosis common among cranks. Bruno, you, on the other hand, quickly and easily made it into my twit-filter.
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.
Hear! Hear!
> 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.)
Are they really all that hard to understand? If one can understand the angler fish, I think one can understand the marketing mind.
>>, 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?
I am not sure what you mean by 'brass-bullet'. But if you mean something very effective that lacks the magical properties necessary for solving all problems without any effort, then I agree. Received on Wed Jul 12 2006 - 14:17:32 CEST