Comments on: Sane Software Design http://www.codesimplicity.com/archives/41 Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:00:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Max Kanat-Alexander http://www.codesimplicity.com/archives/41#comment-635 Max Kanat-Alexander Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:49:03 +0000 http://www.codesimplicity.com/?p=41#comment-635 Hey Ed! First off, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. :-) I think it's pretty interesting that you might be able to describe or prove some of these things with math! I had a brief look over your paper (don't have the time to read it all at the moment) and it does look pretty interesting. My overall goal is of course the practicality of the system, but it's certainly possible that we could gain some practicality by knowing how to crunch some numbers about things. I think people would definitely be interested, particularly if there was a summary of the stuff you came up with somewhere (since not everybody is going to want to read the whole proof or reasoning). -Max Hey Ed!

First off, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. :-)

I think it’s pretty interesting that you might be able to describe or prove some of these things with math! I had a brief look over your paper (don’t have the time to read it all at the moment) and it does look pretty interesting.

My overall goal is of course the practicality of the system, but it’s certainly possible that we could gain some practicality by knowing how to crunch some numbers about things.

I think people would definitely be interested, particularly if there was a summary of the stuff you came up with somewhere (since not everybody is going to want to read the whole proof or reasoning).

-Max

]]> By: Ed Kirwan http://www.codesimplicity.com/archives/41#comment-634 Ed Kirwan Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:09:42 +0000 http://www.codesimplicity.com/?p=41#comment-634 Hi, Max, I remember reading your articles on the laws of software over the past year, and thank you for them: I enjoyed them all. I had an issue with one of the first articles (as I was working on something related at the time) but it wasn't an issue worth bringing up. I only bring it up now because something you said then relates to your fine article above (which has summarised your laws of software). The article I took issue with was your foundational, "There Is No Science Of Software," from which launch-pad you fired off your laws. In that article you say: "The science I’m talking about is not Computer Science. That’s a mathematical study. I’m talking about a science for the “working programmer”–something that gives fundamental laws and rules to follow when writing a program in any language." But this presupposes that the laws of software will not be mathematical, which is odd, as most of the laws of science are mathematical. Anyway, I certainly did agree with your, "A science is composed of observations, experiments, and laws." Here, for example, in the paper, "Encapsulation theory fundamentals," is a paper detailing three laws relating to a tiny subset of software, based on observations and experiment and mathematically proven: http://www.edmundkirwan.com/pub/ The point being: it is possible that the fundamental laws of software may be mathematically describable. Regards, Ed. Hi, Max,

I remember reading your articles on the laws of software over the past year, and thank you for them: I enjoyed them all.

I had an issue with one of the first articles (as I was working on something related at the time) but it wasn’t an issue worth bringing up. I only bring it up now because something you said then relates to your fine article above (which has summarised your laws of software).

The article I took issue with was your foundational, “There Is No Science Of Software,” from which launch-pad you fired off your laws.

In that article you say:

“The science I’m talking about is not Computer Science. That’s a mathematical study. I’m talking about a science for the “working programmer”–something that gives fundamental laws and rules to follow when writing a program in any language.”

But this presupposes that the laws of software will not be mathematical, which is odd, as most of the laws of science are mathematical.

Anyway, I certainly did agree with your, “A science is composed of observations, experiments, and laws.”

Here, for example, in the paper, “Encapsulation theory fundamentals,” is a paper detailing three laws relating to a tiny subset of software, based on observations and experiment and mathematically proven:
http://www.edmundkirwan.com/pub/

The point being: it is possible that the fundamental laws of software may be mathematically describable.

Regards,

Ed.

]]>