warning: ignoring induction and analogy may be harmful to your code
in [OOP]
|
Prev: Object Oriented Completeness
Next: warning: ignoring induction and analogy may be harmful to yourcode
From: Thomas Gagne on 19 Feb 2007 21:58 topmind wrote: > <snip> > > Yeah, we are all hung up in this evidence stuff. Cursed our damned > science and logic education. (Cue Supertramp "Logical" song....) > What kind of logic might you be referring to? You must not be thinking about inductive reasoning because the inductive evidence is overwhelming. Only the willfully ignorant can ignore it. As for science, programmers have been suffering science-envy since the 1950s. Just looking at what organizations try to conclude from LOC/programmer-day, debugged lines of code, and measuring the /quality/ of code between senior and junior programmers is enough to convince me the best we've come up with is computerology. -- Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> to read my rants on technology and the finance industry.
From: topmind on 19 Feb 2007 23:01 Thomas Gagne wrote: > topmind wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Yeah, we are all hung up in this evidence stuff. Cursed our damned > > science and logic education. (Cue Supertramp "Logical" song....) > > > What kind of logic might you be referring to? You must not be thinking > about inductive reasoning because the inductive evidence is > overwhelming. Inductive? You really want to rest your hat on inductive reasoning? Some wrapping is good, therefor all wrapping is good??? Like I said, I believe software engineering is about *balancing* competing factors. No one factor trumps all the others. The difference between amateurs and professionals is that professionals have experience to allocate the decision factors better. > Only the willfully ignorant can ignore it. > > As for science, programmers have been suffering science-envy since the > 1950s. Just looking at what organizations try to conclude from > LOC/programmer-day, debugged lines of code, and measuring the /quality/ > of code between senior and junior programmers is enough to convince me > the best we've come up with is computerology. Then why are you so insistent that wrapping all SQL is the best course of action? You could have just said, "it works for me" and been done with it. Instead, you imply that disagreers are mentally deficient or "willfully ignorant". -T-
From: topmind on 20 Feb 2007 00:56
Thomas Gagne wrote: > topmind wrote: > > Thomas Gagne wrote: > > > >> topmind wrote: > >> > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> Yeah, we are all hung up in this evidence stuff. Cursed our damned > >>> science and logic education. (Cue Supertramp "Logical" song....) > >>> > >>> > >> What kind of logic might you be referring to? You must not be thinking > >> about inductive reasoning because the inductive evidence is > >> overwhelming. > >> > > > > Inductive? You really want to rest your hat on inductive reasoning? > > > Yes. I believe Francis Bacon and formal inductive logic make a > reasonable, satisfactory, and very sturdy hat stand. > > <snip> > >> Only the willfully ignorant can ignore it. > >> > >> As for science, programmers have been suffering science-envy since the > >> 1950s. Just looking at what organizations try to conclude from > >> LOC/programmer-day, debugged lines of code, and measuring the /quality/ > >> of code between senior and junior programmers is enough to convince me > >> the best we've come up with is computerology. > >> > > > > Then why are you so insistent that wrapping all SQL is the best course > > of action? > Did I use the word wrapping? I don't think so. I've tried, > deliberately, to talk about separating SQL into its own modules, I've > talked about stored procedures, I've talked about program structure, > I've talked about parameterizing calls, treating them as functions > rather than inlined code, and how modularity wards against spaghetti. I > am not advocating wrapping SQL inside OO. I'm only reporting that > Wirth's ideas for structured programming apply equally well to embedded > SQL as they do Pascal, or C, or PL/1, or Java, or any other language > capable of creating then calling and returning from a subroutine. > > You try so hard to be argumentative and to advocate against OO you seem > paranoid against ideas based simply on where they came from. There's a > word for that. I didn't equate "wrapping" with OO anywhere I know of. Anyhow, we will just have to agree to disagree. I can't make you like my code and you cannot make me like your code. We each found a style that works best, or at least comfortably, for *ourselves*. Software design is almost like arguing how to best organize one's desk (paper/ physical desk, not computer desktop) or even one's sock drawer. Our family once almost had a fist fight over whether to put the toilet paper roll facing "inner" (under) versus "outer" paper flow. This debate is reminding me of that. Wipe how you please; just don't make it law to impose your wipage preference on others. Enough of this topic already. Barring new evidence, let's end it (pun). > > -- > Visit <http://blogs.instreamfinancial.com/anything.php> > to read my rants on technology and the finance industry. -T- |