Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:18:54 GMT
> What's wrong with how you encoded it?
(I'm at risk of getting in over my head on this one and I did mis-remember in several places, left out 'perplexity' and 'timeless'.) In c.d.t. lingo, it's an 'interpretation' of 'something else', not far off from some requirements I've seen. By itself, all alone, it is beautiful and right and I feel I know what it means but I don't know what Tom meant, makes me feel comfortable and helpless at the same time, just like the average 'formal' requirement does. Its point is how it makes you feel.
In the commercial world, perhaps most requirements are full of hidden emotion and ego, eg., adjectives and adverbs, but implementations often distort those and take on a phony life of their own pretending that it is possible to mechanize intents. Developers don't like to say "you can't have what you want, you can have only what you need", usually they/we are arrogant from the get-go. I suspect you'd agree that if Tom is telling us to do anything, it is nothing. In a world where production is synonymous with motion, that is what is wrong with the way I 'encoded' it, looking for purpose where there is none.
In this semi-literate world where a walk through any development shop exposes the majority spending most of their time trying to figure out what to do next. It is a stultified existence for users and customers too. Call me a Luddite, but in the comptometer age, everybody knew how to separate the activities of their existence.
The obvious computer application is to preserve the text and punctuation and possibly the vocabulary. I remember when such an application was called 'bio-feedback'. Something other than Tom's 'something else' is mechanized. Heh, same goes for what Bill wrote.
Sorry for the commas. Received on Sat Jul 12 2008 - 17:18:54 CEST