Software Engineering is Alchemy (was: Topic-Organized Object...)
- From: "topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Feb 2007 23:07:16 -0800
Diego wrote:
On Feb 7, 2:29 pm, "topmind" <topm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trees are usually a poor categorization structures beyond the trivial.
I suggest you read:
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LimitsOfHierarchies
this c2.com/cgi/wiki is one of worst wiki sites I've seen in my entire
life
all articles are a bunch of random quotes, inner discussions and
personal opinions disguised as state-of-art :(
What is this "state of the art" you talk of? Who defines it? Who tests
it scientifically? The IT industry has lost touch with science and
scrutiny, turning to dark-age-like alchemy.
don't waste your time with that crap
Perhaps, but the alternative is often crappier. Perhaps better
written, perhaps more entertaining, but not necessarily more objective
nor more accurate nor more usable.
You are mistaking style for substance. At least C2 explores claims.
Messy peer review is far better than no peer review. You want clean
BS over gritty strutiny. Well, there are plenty slick cars salesman-
turned-IT-marketers out there to give you your choice.
-T-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: Booted Cat
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: topmind
- Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- From: Diego
- Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Prev by Date: Re: Relational-to-OOP Tax
- Next by Date: The reality of Topmind (Was: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming)
- Previous by thread: Re: Topic-Organized Object-Oriented Programming
- Next by thread: Re: Software Engineering is Alchemy (was: Topic-Organized Object...)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
