Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #3628 > unrolled thread

[OT] engineering

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-15 11:37 +0000
    Re: [OT] engineering Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-07-16 21:49 +0100
      Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-17 09:27 +0000
        Re: [OT] engineering Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-07-17 15:53 +0100
        Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-22 10:36 +0000
          Re: [OT] engineering Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> - 2013-07-23 06:43 -0400
        Re: [OT] engineering Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-07-22 10:38 +0000
    Re: [OT] engineering Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-07-26 10:09 +0100

#3628 — [OT] engineering

>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

 >>> When people can't have multiple disjunct sets of variables used by
 >>> unrelated parts of the same 'aggregate subroutine', they do what
 >>> they should be doing instead, namely, structure their code.

 >> I disagree.  I deem the use of nested scopes as crucial to code
 >> structuring.  Should the "roles" of the variables (whether input,
 >> output, or local) become apparent later, it'd be trivial to split
 >> the function, -- and that's likely to be done exactly along the
 >> scope boundaries previously coded in.

 > To quote my boss: Make it work now quickly and clean it up later :-).
 > Which means: Take some existing code which performs a more-or-less
 > related task, copy'n'paste it to some part of the countryside where
 > no trenches have been dug yet or the old ones worn out over time,
 > create a new nested scope lest all hell breaks lose because any
 > accidental interaction with the surrounings, any details about them
 > long lost in the land of ancient lore,

[...]

	... Once, I will find the patience to wait for the food
	engineers out there to design a sound nutritional solution.

	Meanwhile, I'm forced to rely on the off-the-shelf products,
	which are known to be full of undocumented features, deviate
	from the specifications every now and then, and (while I'm yet
	to see one myself) are reported to contain actual bugs...

	[Cross-posting to news:alt.food and news:comp.programming.
	Just in case.]

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3633

Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>  >>> When people can't have multiple disjunct sets of variables used by
>  >>> unrelated parts of the same 'aggregate subroutine', they do what
>  >>> they should be doing instead, namely, structure their code.
>
>  >> I disagree.  I deem the use of nested scopes as crucial to code
>  >> structuring.  Should the "roles" of the variables (whether input,
>  >> output, or local) become apparent later, it'd be trivial to split
>  >> the function, -- and that's likely to be done exactly along the
>  >> scope boundaries previously coded in.
>
>  > To quote my boss: Make it work now quickly and clean it up later :-).
>  > Which means: Take some existing code which performs a more-or-less
>  > related task, copy'n'paste it to some part of the countryside where
>  > no trenches have been dug yet or the old ones worn out over time,
>  > create a new nested scope lest all hell breaks lose because any
>  > accidental interaction with the surrounings, any details about them
>  > long lost in the land of ancient lore,
>
> [...]
>
> 	... Once, I will find the patience to wait for the food
> 	engineers out there to design a sound nutritional solution.
>
> 	Meanwhile, I'm forced to rely on the off-the-shelf products,
> 	which are known to be full of undocumented features, deviate
> 	from the specifications every now and then, and (while I'm yet
> 	to see one myself) are reported to contain actual bugs...

Minus some obvious misconceptions (eg, the 'off the shelf' food is
designed by 'food engineers' to be 'soundly nutrirional', ie, contain
everything fashion currently demands that it should and not contain
anything fashion demands that it currently mustn't, while less
sophisticated people like me get by somehow with vegetables, meat,
spices and tools to prepare these in some completely 'unscientific'
way), I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3634

>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:

[...]

 >>> To quote my boss: Make it work now quickly and clean it up later

[...]

 >> ... Once, I will find the patience to wait for the food engineers
 >> out there to design a sound nutritional solution.

 >> Meanwhile, I'm forced to rely on the off-the-shelf products, which
 >> are known to be full of undocumented features, deviate from the
 >> specifications every now and then, and (while I'm yet to see one
 >> myself) are reported to contain actual bugs...

 > Minus some obvious misconceptions (eg, the 'off the shelf' food is
 > designed by 'food engineers' to be 'soundly nutrirional', ie, contain
 > everything fashion currently demands that it should and not contain
 > anything fashion demands that it currently mustn't,

	The nutritional requirements of an average healthy adult are
	more or less well-known (check, e. g., [1]), and do not depend
	much on "fashion," whatever one's misconceptions may be.

[1] http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf

 > while less sophisticated people like me get by somehow with
 > vegetables, meat, spices

	(... Except that all of the above were "engineered," one way or
	the other.)

 > and tools to prepare these in some completely 'unscientific' way),

	The "food engineers" of today have learned that they have to
	make food "tasty", not "healthy," in order to succeed.  Which
	more or less corresponds to what I may otherwise call an
	"unscientific" way.

	(Not that there's much difference to "software engineers" in
	this respect.)

 > I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

	My point is simple: if the deadline is today, one has to forget
	about "science" (be it Wirth's, Borlaug's, or someone's else),
	and use whatever "ingredients" available to solve the task at
	hand.  Be it a program, or a dinner.

	And using nested scopes is as beneficial to writing software,
	as washing one's hands is to preparing food.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3636

Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> 	My point is simple: if the deadline is today, one has to forget
> 	about "science" (be it Wirth's, Borlaug's, or someone's else),
> 	and use whatever "ingredients" available to solve the task at
> 	hand.  Be it a program, or a dinner.

I also wrote a longer reply to this which I shouldn't have posted
(which will continue to be available via servers not processing
cancels) but this is the more interesting part: According to my
experience, writing 'bad' code (for a suitable definition of 'bad')
doesn't take less time than writing 'good' code (for a suitable
definition of 'good') to begin with and 'corners cut in order to be
able to present something superficially suitable to $superior now'
will come back to haunt you, ie, when taking the time necessary for
repairs/ maintenance and the time wasted trying to puzzle out the
meaning of 'the usual thicket' into account, 'bad code' needs a lot
more time overall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3639

>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:

 > The text below is only remotely concerned with software engineering

	It's still concerned with food, though, which I'm having a kind
	of a lifelong interest in.

[...]

 >>> Minus some obvious misconceptions (eg, the 'off the shelf' food is
 >>> designed by 'food engineers' to be 'soundly nutrirional', ie,
 >>> contain everything fashion currently demands that it should and
 >>> not contain anything fashion demands that it currently mustn't,

 >> The nutritional requirements of an average healthy adult are more or
 >> less well-known (check, e. g., [1]), and do not depend much on
 >> "fashion," whatever one's misconceptions may be.

 >> [1] http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf

 > I'm sorry if I didn't pay proper respect to your preferred
 > (mis-)conception, but there are simply to many of them, even when
 > just counting 'current' ones which include books of
 > impressively-looking tables.

	While I understand the importance of doubt, I'd like to point
	that in this case, these "impressively-looking tables" are based
	on the very same kind of scientific evidence as that a surgeon
	or a rocket engineer rely upon.

	Sadly, the conventional wisdom puts more trust in glossies that
	it does in the Institute of Medicine publications.

 > Prior to Mad Cow Disease, nutrional requirements of cows were already
 > well-known.

	Isn't it stretched a bit?  It sounds as if prions were once
	thought as a constituent of a healthy cow diet, and then, -- all
	of a sudden, -- were found not to be.  (While in reality, the
	"health benefits" of prions are as dependent on "fashion," as
	are those of the most of cyanides, dioxins, or strychnine.)

 > Do we really have a surge of ideologically blinded suicide bombers
 > nowadays?

	Somehow, it was my understanding that the family of a suicide
	bomber will at times receive support from those "authorizing"
	the bombing.  Therefore, it indeed may have more to do with the
	"diet" than with the "ideology."

[...]

 >>> while less sophisticated people like me get by somehow with
 >>> vegetables, meat, spices

 >> (... Except that all of the above were "engineered," one way or the
 >> other.)

 > Indeed.  I remember an old joke which went roughly like this:

[...]

 > With the help of a suitable set of definitions, any term can be
 > interpreted to mean anything, at the expense of rendering meaningful
 > communication impossible (which may be desired).

	Yet another joke I recall says that one doesn't ask questions to
	a programmer, for the answer will be true, precise, and useless
	in practice.

	But the fact is: the varieties grown on the fields of today are
	"better" (at least when it comes to the yield; and the
	difference may easily be of an order of magnitude) than those
	cultivated a century ago; and it's likely that those that will
	be grown a century from now will be "better" still.

	So, the choice is: to wait, or to use what's available right
	now?

 >>> and tools to prepare these in some completely 'unscientific' way),

 >> The "food engineers" of today have learned that they have to make
 >> food "tasty", not "healthy," in order to succeed.  Which more or
 >> less corresponds to what I may otherwise call an "unscientific" way.

 > The purpose of 'the sense of taste' is to enable distinction between
 > 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' things one could possibly eat.  It works
 > better for horses because these tend to approach the matter
 > empirically and with an unprejudiced mind, something humans,
 > especially humans wielding statistics, rarely do.

	The evolution (which gave the horse its "sense of taste" -- as
	well as all the other senses) is as wise as it's blind.  And, if
	it's so easy to fool the eye with an optical illusion, shouldn't
	it be at least remotely possible to fool one's sense of taste?

	Why, it was my understanding that it's what at least some of the
	pesticides do: use a toxin which is "tasty" to its victim.
	(Something that, they argue, is the ultimate goal of the
	"fast food" industry of today.)

 >>> I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

 >> My point is simple: if the deadline is today, one has to forget
 >> about "science" (be it Wirth's, Borlaug's, or someone's else), and
 >> use whatever "ingredients" available to solve the task at hand.  Be
 >> it a program, or a dinner.

 > That just a convenient justification the proverbial old poodle uses
 > in order to defend against the supposition of having to learn new
 > tricks: Whatever the benefits might be, I've got no time for this
 > ATM, I'm to busy performing the old ones, constantly working around
 > their deficiencies, and won't ever have any time for that, either.

	And it's quite natural, and happens in just every field of human
	activity.  To paraphrase, it takes a touch of genius to do
	otherwise.

	I'd like to also respond to the other argument here.

 > According to my experience, writing 'bad' code (for a suitable
 > definition of 'bad') doesn't take less time than writing 'good' code
 > (for a suitable definition of 'good')

	... It sounds as if the time required to learn to write "good"
	code was somehow assumed to be zero or negligible, while I
	sincerely doubt that it really is.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3641

In <87d2qaubif.fsf@violet.siamics.net>, on 07/22/2013
   at 10:36 AM, Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> said:

>	But the fact is: the varieties grown on the fields of today are
>	"better" (at least when it comes to the yield;

The yield has nothing to do with the nutritional value or the flavor,
and is sometimes at their expense.

>	So, the choice is: to wait, or to use what's available right
>	now?

That's a false dichotomy, sometimes multiple options are available
right now. The trick is in finding the right options among the
hooplah.

>	Why, it was my understanding that it's what at least some of the
>	pesticides do: use a toxin which is "tasty" to its victim.
>	(Something that, they argue, is the ultimate goal of the
>	"fast food" industry of today.)

I find some of the fast food to be remarkably tasteless, although I
must confess a weakness for felaffel stands.

>	... It sounds as if the time required to learn to write "good"
>	code was somehow assumed to be zero or negligible, while I
>	sincerely doubt that it really is.

Indeed, it is not negligible, and many schools do not take the time to
teach it. I wish that they'd stop teaching the language du jour and
start teaching programming.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3640

>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:

 > The text below is only remotely concerned with software engineering

	It's still concerned with food, though, which I'm having a kind
	of a lifelong interest in.

[...]

 >>> Minus some obvious misconceptions (eg, the 'off the shelf' food is
 >>> designed by 'food engineers' to be 'soundly nutrirional', ie,
 >>> contain everything fashion currently demands that it should and
 >>> not contain anything fashion demands that it currently mustn't,

 >> The nutritional requirements of an average healthy adult are more or
 >> less well-known (check, e. g., [1]), and do not depend much on
 >> "fashion," whatever one's misconceptions may be.

 >> [1] http://www.iom.edu/Global/News%20Announcements/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Summary_Listing.pdf

 > I'm sorry if I didn't pay proper respect to your preferred
 > (mis-)conception, but there are simply to many of them, even when
 > just counting 'current' ones which include books of
 > impressively-looking tables.

	While I understand the importance of doubt, I'd like to point
	that in this case, these "impressively-looking tables" are based
	on the very same kind of scientific evidence as that a surgeon
	or a rocket engineer rely upon.

	Sadly, the conventional wisdom puts more trust in glossies that
	it does in the Institute of Medicine publications.

 > Prior to Mad Cow Disease, nutrional requirements of cows were already
 > well-known.

	Isn't it stretched a bit?  It sounds as if prions were once
	thought as a constituent of a healthy cow diet, and then, -- all
	of a sudden, -- were found not to be.  (While in reality, the
	"health benefits" of prions are as dependent on "fashion," as
	are those of the most of cyanides, dioxins, or strychnine.)

 > Do we really have a surge of ideologically blinded suicide bombers
 > nowadays?

	Somehow, it was my understanding that the family of a suicide
	bomber will at times receive support from those "authorizing"
	the bombing.  Therefore, it indeed may have more to do with the
	"diet" than with the "ideology."

[...]

 >>> while less sophisticated people like me get by somehow with
 >>> vegetables, meat, spices

 >> (... Except that all of the above were "engineered," one way or the
 >> other.)

 > Indeed.  I remember an old joke which went roughly like this:

[...]

 > With the help of a suitable set of definitions, any term can be
 > interpreted to mean anything, at the expense of rendering meaningful
 > communication impossible (which may be desired).

	Yet another joke I recall says that one doesn't ask questions to
	a programmer, for the answer will be true, precise, and useless
	in practice.

	But the fact is: the varieties grown on the fields of today are
	"better" (at least when it comes to the yield; and the
	difference may easily be of an order of magnitude) than those
	cultivated a century ago; and it's likely that those that will
	be grown a century from now will be "better" still.

	So, the choice is: to wait, or to use what's available right
	now?

 >>> and tools to prepare these in some completely 'unscientific' way),

 >> The "food engineers" of today have learned that they have to make
 >> food "tasty", not "healthy," in order to succeed.  Which more or
 >> less corresponds to what I may otherwise call an "unscientific" way.

 > The purpose of 'the sense of taste' is to enable distinction between
 > 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' things one could possibly eat.  It works
 > better for horses because these tend to approach the matter
 > empirically and with an unprejudiced mind, something humans,
 > especially humans wielding statistics, rarely do.

	The evolution (which gave the horse its "sense of taste" -- as
	well as all the other senses) is as wise as it's blind.  And, if
	it's so easy to fool the eye with an optical illusion, shouldn't
	it be at least remotely possible to fool one's sense of taste?

	Why, it was my understanding that it's what at least some of the
	pesticides do: use a toxin which is "tasty" to its victim.
	(Something that, they argue, is the ultimate goal of the
	"fast food" industry of today.)

 >>> I have no idea what this was supposed to mean.

 >> My point is simple: if the deadline is today, one has to forget
 >> about "science" (be it Wirth's, Borlaug's, or someone's else), and
 >> use whatever "ingredients" available to solve the task at hand.  Be
 >> it a program, or a dinner.

 > That just a convenient justification the proverbial old poodle uses
 > in order to defend against the supposition of having to learn new
 > tricks: Whatever the benefits might be, I've got no time for this
 > ATM, I'm to busy performing the old ones, constantly working around
 > their deficiencies, and won't ever have any time for that, either.

	And it's quite natural, and happens in just every field of human
	activity.  To paraphrase, it takes a touch of genius to do
	otherwise.

	I'd like to also respond to the other argument here.

 > According to my experience, writing 'bad' code (for a suitable
 > definition of 'bad') doesn't take less time than writing 'good' code
 > (for a suitable definition of 'good')

	... It sounds as if the time required to learn to write "good"
	code was somehow assumed to be zero or negligible, while I
	sincerely doubt that it really is.

-- 
FSF associate member #7257

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3643

Ivan Shmakov wrote:

> [...]
> 
> ... Once, I will find the patience to wait for the food
> engineers out there to design a sound nutritional solution.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm forced to rely on the off-the-shelf products,
> which are known to be full of undocumented features, deviate
> from the specifications every now and then, and (while I'm yet
> to see one myself) are reported to contain actual bugs...
> 
> [Cross-posting to news:alt.food and news:comp.programming.
> Just in case.]

All engineering relies on off-the-shelf products.  The shelf, though, does 
depend on the circumstances and requirements.  Nevertheless, it's off-the-
shelf all the way down to the turtles, if you will.[1]


Rui Maciel

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web