On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 6/1/07, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This argument is neither here nor there. Do you need CS papers from
2057 today because the problem is not an "implementation detail"
today? You are still using "implementation detail" in a vague and
poorly defined way.
I'm talking about the process of going from a stack of CS papers to
a working, useful program. I'm pointing out that most of the
difficulty lies in that process, not in generating the CS papers.
Really? So where is your stack of so easily generated papers? I
grant that implementation issues can be huge and very burdensome
beyond the algorithms used of course. But many of those issues have
more to do with the still (STILL!) very primitive software languages
and methodologies used and with primitive project knowledge management
tools and with the vagaries of managing a population of implementation
folks and other stakeholders.
One of the ugly secrets of this business is how little real innovation
is in many highly touted products. An uglier secret is how little
computer science most professional software engineers actually apply
to their work. There is a lot of banging away on a bit of software
so it more or less meets the spec in at least some threshold number of
cases.
- samantha
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
