Re: What databases have taught me

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2006 16:59:44 -0700, Marshall wrote:
>
> > topmind wrote:
>
> >> I suggest you try to focus on more practical issues, such as comparing
> >> solutions to realistic scenarios rather than get bogged down in a
> >> definition battle. When software design is turned into a science rather
> >> than an art, then revisit definitions. Until then, stop bickering over
> >> art.
> >
> > I think the idea of software as art is something of an
> > anti-intellectual one.
>
> "Irrational" would be a better word. There exist quite intelligent artists,
> you can't deny it.
>
> To understand software design rationally is an intellectual challenge for
> CS. Calls to give up, to remain artisans, "reflexive developing" indeed
> smell anti-intellectual.

After thousands of debates and failed attempts to find objective metrics beyond execution speed and matching stated external requirements, I am leaning toward the "art" viewpoint. One man's spehgetti code is another man's masterpeice. Just because I find it a flaming tangled mess does not mean the next guy will. Related:

http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/science.htm

Spoiler:

"This nearly infinite flexibility of software, I have concluded, is why objective software design evaluation is nearly impossible: there is no objective reality inside software. This is the secret cause of all the debate headaches. We might as well be a bunch of loonies in the mental hospital arguing over which one of us is the real or best Napoleon. The difference is that in cyberspace we *can* all be Napoleon....."

>
> --
> Regards,
> Dmitry A. Kazakov

-T- Received on Sat Jul 08 2006 - 22:18:17 CEST