[9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[lucio]

> http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html

Bloody marvellous.  I'm copying my thanks to the Plan 9 mailing list.

++L

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[andrey mirtchovski]

> > http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html

Why does this paper have SO MANY CAPITALIZED WORDS, and what can we do
to improve it?

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[lucio]

>> > http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html
>
> Why does this paper have SO MANY CAPITALIZED WORDS, and what can we do
> to improve it?

Search and replace.  I'm sure that capitalisation is used specifically
for the concepts they are discussing.  At least that's the impression
I get (I'm looking at an htmlfmt version of the paper, too lazy to
spawn a browser).

++L

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[Sape Mullender]

>> > http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html
>
> Why does this paper have SO MANY CAPITALIZED WORDS, and what can we do
> to improve it?

tr A-Z a-z

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[andrey mirtchovski]

come on you two, i was throwing a jab at this sentence from the abstract:

"Why are so many existing systems architecturally undistinguished, and
what can we do to improve them?"

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[john]

> come on you two, i was throwing a jab at this sentence from the abstract:
>
> "Why are so many existing systems architecturally undistinguished, and
> what can we do to improve them?"

Good god, man, engineers/programmers reading? You must have different
standards.</jest>


John "I'll Read It Later" Floren

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[Bakul Shah]

Here is a choice sentence from this paper:

    A BIG BALL OF MUD is haphazardly structured, sprawling,
    sloppy, duct-tape and bailing wire, spaghetti code jungle

I can't figure out the pattern he used to generate this but I
do think this is entirely unfair to a big ball of mud, duct
tape, baling wire, spaghetti and jungle.  Doesn't everyone
know most modern s/w is like a Rube Goldberg contraption?

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html

i offer my counter diatribe/extrapolation for peer review:

bbom should just be called "organic software" or "evolutionary
software".  unlike organic vegetables, it's not good for you.  like
vegetables, the force behind its evolution is not some grand design
with stated requirements like "its green leaves shall be nourishing to
humans" but competition for local resources to survive.

for shantytowns the inputs to the resource equation are: available
material within 500' of construction site, 1-2 weeks (before the rainy
season and after a hastily arranged marriage), work output of 2 people
and space available within 25' of where the person is standing.

for software industry, it is about survival of the software company.
it must beat the competitors to the market - software survives to
evolve if the company survives.  the parameters to the resource
equation are similar to shantytowns: 2-3 months (for a 6-9 month
release cycle), output of 1-2 developers within the part of the code
that they understand.

elegance and efficiency of software become major factors only if a
software malfunction can adversely affect the survival of the
company that produces it; which usually means it must cause loss
of life or property.

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[W B Hacker]

Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>>> http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html
>
> i offer my counter diatribe/extrapolation for peer review:
>
*snip*

>
> elegance and efficiency of software become major factors only if a
> software malfunction can adversely affect the survival of the
> company that produces it; which usually means it must cause loss
> of life or property.
>
>

Seems the automobile, tire, and tobacco companies have disproved concerns about
'loss of life', the Credit Card companies and tax man disproved the bit about
'loss of property', and Micros**t has confirmed both (given incremental 'loss of
life', i..e hours wasted..).

All we seem to have to worry about really is trans fats in the code and
politically incorrect statements...

No shortage of either... Beware of neighbors carrying rope...

;-)

Bill

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[Gregory Pavelcak]

[no matches in 4fl L.mbox acme.dump avail bin/ cpurc cvs/ devel/ doc/ guide lib/ sys/ text/ tmp/]
[no matches in 4fl L.mbox acme.dump avail bin/ cpurc cvs/ devel/ doc/ guide lib/ sys/ text/ tmp/]
Actually, organic vegetables may not be good for you either.
It just sounds better than "grown in bacteria laden animal excrement".

Greg

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[erik quanstrom]

i think that's too cynical.

elegance and efficency (and a plan) can benefit a company if they
allow the company to build better performing products for less money.
i hope that's what we do.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[W B Hacker]

Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
>>> http://www.joeyoder.com/papers/patterns/BBOM/mud.html
>
> i offer my counter diatribe/extrapolation for peer review:
>
*snip*

>
> elegance and efficiency of software become major factors only if a
> software malfunction can adversely affect the survival of the
> company that produces it; which usually means it must cause loss
> of life or property.
>
>

Seems the automobile, tire, and tobacco companies have disproved concerns about
'loss of life', the Credit Card companies and tax man disproved the bit about
'loss of property', and Micros**t has confirmed both (given incremental 'loss of
life', i..e hours wasted..).

All we seem to have to worry about really is trans fats in the code and
politically incorrect statements...

No shortage of either... Beware of neighbors carrying rope...

;-)

Bill

Re: [9fans] Re: You might enjoy this

[W B Hacker]

W B Hacker wrote:
>
> No shortage of either...

Apologies. No shortage of (trans) fat-fingers, either...

Bill