Re: Declarative constraints in practical terms

Frank Hamersley wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > Frank Hamersley wrote:
> >>dawn wrote:
[....]
> >>Firstly, please, please promise me you will never ever design or build
> >>an aircraft that I might ever be likely to ever fly in (or stand under).
> >
> > No need to worry there
>
> It would be instructive to contemplate the very act - that industry has
> a crash and burn outcome ratio distinctly different to ours!

Yes, looking at projects for developing a variety of products from films to artificial hearts, from tinker toys to aircraft, is instructive for our discipline. We need to understand the risk factors with any project we are doing to know whether it is closer to that of a film or an artificial heart.

> > If I didn't see any value at all in the RM, I wouldn't bother probing
> > and asking questions about it.
>
> Your agenda is to discredit it, not to inform yourself. More artifice!

My agenda is as I have stated it (better, faster, less expensive s/w dev), all other points are in support of that. I never intended to discredit the RM until I decided that it was not the most helpful model for software developers to use after studying it.

My only agenda in using this forum is to inform myself. I have been taken to task by one MV developer who said that by continuing with questions and giving my opinions, it was not helpful to MV. It isn't my intent to harm people in any camp, but to find good solutions. I am asking questions until I am either satisfied that I understand a topic or satisfied that I will not understand it better by asking more. If I were to evangelize for MV (which I have done on occasion), I would surely not choose this spot. It takes all the balls I have and then some to participate in this forum ;-)

> >>It seems to me no matter what evidence or logical deductions are
> >>presented that this state of affairs will not change. Consequently I
> >>find interesting that you bother to project any ambivalence at all on
> >>these subjects.
> >
> > You are right that if my inclinations were as you have suggested, there
> > would be no point. So, you don't have me pegged right yet, I suspect.
>
> So you hope - I am not swayed.

Have you read my blog? That is where I am giving my opinions in an effort to sway. If you are not swayed by anything I say here, well, so be it (although I like you, Frank, so I'd of course prefer you understood and respected my motivations :-).

> > I'm here to learn, not to proselytize, whereas with my blog I am trying
> > to write what I have learned and lay out a case for others to consider
> > in those areas in which I have an opinion. Here I render opinions,
> > too, but it is so that I can find out what I'm not seeing clearly and
> > make corrections. I am not nearly as fixed on any particular solution
> > as the average RM proponent.
>
> Heh heh - that is perfectly aligned with how you characterise RM
> adherents - rigid and unduly structured, blind to progress whilst you
> have to flexibility to reach nirvana.

ooooooooooomm

I figure if I say it how I see it, then someone else will too and I will be enlightened.

> > I'm directed toward a goal related to software development. HTH.
>
> I guess my interest is somewhat broader - encompassing not only the act
> of development, but the whole box and dice. Wholistic (sic) if you like.

And I was thinking I was being wholistic recognizing I wasn't looking at peace on earth, but narrowing it down to what might be termed business data processing. I am looking at developer productivity within that, but that very much includes user success with the software. I'm not looking at developers to just build software faster no matter how good it is. I very much care about the box and dice too, as best I can tell, but I might be missing something. What is the more wholistic picture you ae addressing?

Cheers! --dawn Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 20:17:39 CET