Re: Language Oriented Programming
- From: "Isaac Gouy" <igouy@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Aug 2005 15:23:11 -0700
Laurent Bossavit wrote:
> 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.)
Is there any chance of informed discussion when we are simply guessing
that the statements we make are correct?
My rather bad-tempered point was that if "you don't know the ratio of
robust to fragile" then why oh why are you claiming that "most
ecosystems can afford to lose one species".
> > 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 ?
I just turned your statement around - I presume you have no better
basis for saying "when one module fails (even a small one) typically
the whole thing fails" than you did for commenting on ecosystems.
Is there some specific situation where you can say that you know "when
one module fails (even a small one) typically the whole thing fails"?
> 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: Laurent Bossavit
- 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
- From: Laurent Bossavit
- Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Test first as specification
- Next by Date: Re: Bitwise Mag editorial calls OOP 'Snake Oil'
- Previous by thread: Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Language Oriented Programming
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|