In article <mailman.896.1332440814.3037.python-l...@python.org>, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html > >I read that article a long time ago, it was bullshit then, it is >bullshit now. The only thing he gets right is that the Shannon >information of a uniquely specified program is proportional to the >code that would be required to generate it. Never mind that if a
Thank you for drawing my attention to that article. It attacks the humbug software architects. Are you one of them? I really liked that article. >program meets a specification, you shouldn't care about any of the >values used for unspecified parts of the program. If you care about >the values, they should be specified. So, if Joel had said that the >program was uniquely specified, or that none of the things that >weren't specified require values in the programming language, he might >have been kinda, sorta right. Of course, nobody cares enough to >specify every last bit of minutiae in a program, and specifications >change, so it is pretty much impossible to imagine either case ever >actually occurring. I wonder if you're not talking about a different article. <SNIP> Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list