<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sane Software Design</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/sane-software-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/sane-software-design/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:07:27 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Max Kanat-Alexander</title>
		<link>http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/sane-software-design/comment-page-1/#comment-635</link>
		<dc:creator>Max Kanat-Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.codesimplicity.com/?p=41#comment-635</guid>
		<description>Hey Ed!

First off, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. :-)

I think it&#039;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&#039;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&#039;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</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Ed!</p>
<p>First off, thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate that. <img src='http://www.codesimplicity.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I think it&#8217;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&#8217;t have the time to read it all at the moment) and it does look pretty interesting.</p>
<p>My overall goal is of course the practicality of the system, but it&#8217;s certainly possible that we could gain some practicality by knowing how to crunch some numbers about things.</p>
<p>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).</p>
<p>-Max</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Kirwan</title>
		<link>http://www.codesimplicity.com/post/sane-software-design/comment-page-1/#comment-634</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Kirwan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 20:09:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.codesimplicity.com/?p=41#comment-634</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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, &quot;There Is No Science Of Software,&quot; from which launch-pad you fired off your laws. 

In that article you say:

&quot;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.&quot;

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, &quot;A science is composed of observations, experiments, and laws.&quot;

Here, for example, in the paper, &quot;Encapsulation theory fundamentals,&quot; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Max,</p>
<p>I remember reading your articles on the laws of software over the past year, and thank you for them: I enjoyed them all.</p>
<p>I had an issue with one of the first articles (as I was working on something related at the time) but it wasn&#8217;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).</p>
<p>The article I took issue with was your foundational, &#8220;There Is No Science Of Software,&#8221; from which launch-pad you fired off your laws. </p>
<p>In that article you say:</p>
<p>&#8220;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.&#8221;</p>
<p>But this presupposes that the laws of software will not be mathematical, which is odd, as most of the laws of science are mathematical.</p>
<p>Anyway, I certainly did agree with your, &#8220;A science is composed of observations, experiments, and laws.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here, for example, in the paper, &#8220;Encapsulation theory fundamentals,&#8221; is a paper detailing three laws relating to a tiny subset of software, based on observations and experiment and mathematically proven:<br />
<a href="http://www.edmundkirwan.com/pub/" rel="nofollow">http://www.edmundkirwan.com/pub/</a></p>
<p>The point being: it is possible that the fundamental laws of software may be mathematically describable.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Ed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
