David Brown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 09:45:02PM -0800, Darren New wrote:
It's the reduction of ambiguity around a *solution* to zero. Software
doesn't change the *problem* at all, obviously. But you can come up
with a solution by making arbitrary choices. Said choices may or may
not be correct.
I've seen plenty of situations where the solution ended up essentially
redefining what the problem was. It doesn't really change the problem,
but, as you say, was just poor choices around the problem.
That's fair. Indeed, sometimes trying to solve the problem can result in
recognition that you're trying to solve the wrong problem, too.
I heard Dean Kamen speak before. His main point was that most software
companies spend most of their time fixing their solutions. The choices
that go into a particular solution ends up having to be changed and fixed
more than what needs to be done to meet the original problem.
I've seen that too, yes. I'm just objecting to the statement in the
subject line, and to the implication that programming something makes
you really understand it.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
