Re: when to use proc

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 11/08/03 

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 05:41:44 -0000

Frank Kotler wrote:
> Ed Beroset wrote:
> > I suspect your refridgerator has two unusual features: a switch
and an
> > window. The switch is for you to manually turn off the light,
rather
> > than trusting the door closing to actually do that, and the window
is
> > for you to verify that the light is really off when the door
closed. ;-)
>
> Well, my refrigerator doesn't have those features, but I'd like it
if it
> did. You've got me pegged! And that probably summarizes my viewpoint
as
> well as anything could...

My point of view - and, yes, I've really actually done this with a
refridgerator too, when I was incredibly bored and feeling curious
about how the various "gadgets" and things might work - would be to
open the door, find the little button thing that the closing door
pushes to switch off the light and then press it once or twice...then
hold it in for a while...then release the button...yes, the light is
indeed going off when the button is pushed in...

Then I slowly close the door looking at the button...yes, the button
is being pushed in when you close the door...the button sticks out
further than where the edge of the fridge door would be when fully
closed...hence, A implies B implies C, so A implies C...when I shut
the door, the light will, indeed, go off...if there were a window,
then it would not hurt to confirm this...but a window is not
particularly necessary as I've examined the parts, worked out how they
operate, the consequences of pushing the button and so forth...

Oh, indeed...I don't implicitly necessarily "trust" that the fridge
light goes off just because someone says it does (mind you, even if I
did 100% trust someone when they say this, I'd _STILL_ do this
experiment to be able to understand _how_ it works regardless :)...but
I don't need to see everything to believe it...

In fact, "seeing is believing" is often an inherently flawed way to go
about some types of things (as mentioned before, on a logical level,
the entire notion of "testing" software by manual execution one by one
of each possibility is a completely _flawed_ concept...you're trying
to test an "always" - "this program is always correct" - by raw
enumeration of possibilities that are, for non-trivial programs,
usually running off towards infinity at a frighteningly exponential
pace ;)...

I prefer "knowing is believing" instead...I try to discover the
mechanism - the button that the fridge door pushes - and find out
exactly how it works then I can know that the light goes off and don't
need to actually see it happening...BUT it's not a total "trust" thing
because I do push the button once or twice to see that the mechanism
does, indeed, work in switching off the light...

Therefore, I spit out "listing files" for all assembles (it makes
absolutely no perceivable difference to the speed it takes, as far as
I can see, so I ask for it and it dumps the file there...if I don't
want to specifically look at it, then I just ignore it...but it's
always there for when I do :)...so, I write some code, look at the
listing file to view the "mechanism" at work in order to work out how
this works...also, an inspection with a disassembler of the final EXE
to see how the linker has gone about its work...

But there is no need to do this all the time...if you like, I need to
_see_ it about three times (statistical thing...the "degrees of
freedom"...you must have at least three points on a graph before any
sort of correlation - the minimum "linear" relationship - can be
assertained...hence, like the ancient bards would do, always do things
in threes ;)...then I am assured of how the mechanism works and do not
need to see it again...

It's a "halfway house" between the two usual extremes...I don't need
to see everything at all times...but, yes, I must see it twice or
thrice and do some experiments with the "mechanism" to assure myself
it operates as it's supposed to operate...

Not a matter of "Faith" and not a matter of "only seeing is believing"
either...it's the original "scientific" attitude...approach
_everything_ with scepticism (note, this word has been turned
"negative" over the years...much like the word "criticism" has been
made into a "negative" word too...but whenever I use these words, I
mean them in their original semantics..."criticism" can be negative
_or_ positive...the objective of "criticism" is merely useful
feedback...sometimes "it's crap! Change it all!" is the most useful
feedback, sometimes "it's great! Don't you dare change anything!" is
most useful...similarly, "scepticism" doesn't necessarily mean you
don't believe someone in a negative way...even if I totally believe
you about the fridge door, I'll still experiment with the
mechanism...not to confirm that it works but simply to try to
_understand_ _how_ it works)...attempt to comprehend the elements and
the mechanisms that work on those elements...put that all together and
you have _knowledge_ of a thing (which is, of course, what "science"
literally means: "knowledge" :)...

Once you _know_ that the machine will operate as expected, then you
can leave it do its work...I _insist_ on knowing this...but,
thereafter, I don't need to constantly look at the machine doing its
work all the time to be assured that it is working...you only need to
re-check if the mechanism or elements change (e.g. the door becomes
"wonky" and is starting to hang off its hinges a bit...so, does it
still correctly push the button? :)...

So, it's "somewhere in the middle" attitude-wise...I have sympathy for
both sides of the argument...be that Randy or Rene (to take these two
as "representatives" of the sort of "extremes" of the basic "software
engineering versus hacker" argument :)...I _must_ see the mechanism, I
_must_ know that it works and how it works...but, thereafter, I'm
happy to simply let it work...I've always been the "curious child" who
"experiments" with everything and asks all the awkward questions like
"why is the sky blue?" and so forth...and, as Einstein I think put it,
there is absolutely no good reason to ever cease from that attitude at
any point...it would be a terrible day indeed to cease from being in
awe and constantly curious and questioning of the universe and how it
works...because, on that day, you've - in a sense - ceased to care
about your world...and, yes, though you may "function" perfectly well
thereafter, you have to wonder _why_ you'd even want to do so? That
would be, in a sense, the death of your soul and a case of merely
sitting around waiting for the body to eventually catch up and die
too...

So, sorry, no apologies for questioning things...no apologies for
caring about things...and no apologies for going on about things all
the time...I do NOT regret being alive so I'm not going to apologise
for any of the things that make being alive what it is...

"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the Sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

[ "Do _NOT_ go gentle into that good night", Dylan Thomas ]

Beth :)