Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: Laurent Bossavit <laurent@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:11:41 +0200
Isaac,
> Ecosystems can afford to lose one species - except when
> they can't and the whole thing unravels (aka fragile ecosystem).
Do we know of ecosystems that collapsed for loss of a single species ?
More generally, do we know of many ecosystems that are fragile, other
than the ones whose fragility we are responsible for ? (I'll admit I
picked ecosystems without knowing the ratio of robust to fragile.)
> When one module fails (even a small one) typically the whole thing
> continues on as though nothing happened (aka log the error).
If the system can literally continue "as though nothing happened",
wouldn't it be a better design if we got rid of the module altogether ?
If your answer involves "the failure introduced an error that someone
will correct manually", then the system under consideration is not
limited to a collection of software modules (sphexish), it is software
plus people (flexible).
> This silly example isn't anything like the Arianne accident,
It's silly - in fact absurd, by design. Is it *entirely* unlike the
Ariane failure?
(We're venturing into Hofstadterian territory; it involves a crash and
misinterpreting something often used as diagnostic information. "Eating
a pumpkin", now there's something that isn't anything like the Ariane
crash; agree ?)
> make it slightly less silly - That's a bit like a car driver hearing a
> front passenger shriek "Oh no!", distractedly turning to look at the
> passenger, and crashing into the slowing traffic in front of them.
I'll call you on that. "Oh no" has different content - it signifies
urgent alarm. (At least the way I imagine your fictional passenger would
sound; maybe she's just saying "Oh no" in a disgusted tone, for all I
know. Your narrative would be a lot less credible.)
It's good design for a survival system to pay attention to signals for
*immediate* danger, temporarily ignoring ongoing peril. (People-in-cars
are less than perfect example of survival systems, for the reason that
they voluntarily choose to face ongoing peril...)
Laurent
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: Isaac Gouy
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- References:
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: Thomas Gagne
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: Laurent Bossavit
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: Isaac Gouy
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Next by Date: Re: Test first as specification
- Previous by thread: Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|