On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 07:27:13 +0100 Achim Schneider <bars...@web.de> wrote:
> Achim Schneider <bars...@web.de> wrote: > > > [...] > > > Hmmm... I seem to have left out the academics definition of bogosity. > I bet that others are much more qualified to elaborate on this, but my > working assumption has been (and still is) that it does include a wide > range of working code, and excludes a lot of abstract nonsense. Well, as someone who has done research in at least 4 different subfields of computer science, I'd say it depends on which subfield you are in. Academics in Human Computer Interaction might criticise a project for having a badly-designed user interface that is hard to use; academics in formal methods might criticise code for not having a specification anywhere of what it does or how it is supposed to handle erroneous inputs; academics working on aspect-oriented software development might criticise code for "tangling" too many concerns unnecessarily in one function. Whereas, each of these academics might be oblivious (or almost oblivious) to the other two critiques. -- Robin _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe