Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 19:48:48 +0200
On Fri, 27 May 2005 09:54:34 -0700, andrew queisser wrote:
>> Interesting reasoning, but I think it's flawed. Supposing a debate on
>> the subject were to occur, then we would likely get an uncountable
>> number of posts P1, P2, P3... Static analysis, however, informs us
>> that the sequence is non-convergent, and that this debate will not lead
>> to a conclusion, thus demonstrating the superiority of static analysis.
>>
> Don't forget Godwin's law. The hypothetical debate will have a countable
> finite amount of posts with no conclusion.
Not necessarily. Posts start to repeat but because the FSM's running in our
brains have a way lesser number of states than the number of possible PNs,
it could continue ad infinitum. [No I don't want to start that TDD debate
again! (:-))] Actually I don't trust in Godwin's law. Empirically, I'd
rather say that any USENET discussion has a period of half-life T. Now the
"true" law is:
the influence of your posting on T decreases exponentially with time
Somewhere around t=2T you can post virtually anything the discussion will
stop anyway!
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
.
- References:
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: H. S. Lahman
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: Daniel Parker
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- From: andrew queisser
- Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Prev by Date: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Next by Date: Re: How to express conditional dependency between components in UML?
- Previous by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Next by thread: Re: Intellisense and the psychology of typing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
