Re: Naming Conventions?

From: paul c <>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:50:31 GMT
Message-ID: <H2QXh.128343$aG1.52822_at_pd7urf3no>

mAsterdam wrote:
> You are not alone. This way, formalism is a sort of safe haven.
> So, how to maturely discuss anything beyond structure?
> The purpose of structure is to support substance.
> ...

No argument. But when purported substance is discussed at length without occasional resort to formalism, I feel nervous that contradictions are likely to be introduced which nobody notices and that an accurate implementation would be impossible. The consistency of human thought being as frail as any serious student of IT, let alone history knows it is, it seems a good idea to double-check once in a while, every day if one has the discipline and once an hour if one has the patience and staying power.

The more words you introduce in a public group the more chance more people will be confused and start talking about different things without knowing it and we will all be sitting on a mystical teeter-totter. I think what we wish for must be continously balanced against what we know how to implement on a computer.

p Received on Wed Apr 25 2007 - 23:50:31 CEST

Original text of this message