Email: Password: Remember Me | Create Account (Free)

Back to Subject List

Old thread has been locked -- no new posts accepted in this thread
Per Westermark
04/08/12 20:16
Read: 721 times
Sweden


 
#187064 - Try document an invention before it's invented...
Responding to: Richard Erlacher's previous message
That you write "I knew you'd have to come in with something irrelevant" only shows that you totally, 100%, missed the point.

"No coding should take place until the end-product is defined. It can't be defined until the hours, month, or centuries of research, among other things, are complete. "

But the project includes the research. And you do not know what the final product can be before you have done the research. And the research do include writing code.

What part of this is so hard to understand: THE RESEARCH IS OFTEN TO A BIG PART CODING!

Don't you get it? Research is building prototypes, and evaluate. Then build better prototypes and evaluate. And every prototype contains code. Hopefully as improved spins of the code from the previous prototype.

You did not get any ABS break system from people writing a complete documentation first. They just did not know what would be a suitable solution until they had made prototypes and tested. It's only the company that comes later and wants to duplicate the system that can write the documentation and full specifications before they start any coding.

"i think what you've written about reducing that board in size is complete nonsesne. If you know what the circuit does, how and when it does it, etc, then how big the board is makes little difference."
Yet more example how you sleep instead of think when you read the text. It's an example of a reengineering of a known solution. So the previous system can be seen as the full documentation - all that is needed is to "repackage" the solution in a better way. That is a situation where you don't really have any research, and can have all documentation up-front.

"then how big the board is makes little difference. If you haven't completely screwed up the hardware design, the requirements documents still apply, and coding can proceed once the hardware is specified. "
Since that was exactly what I did say - why was it so hard to then figure out that this was an example of reengineering where you do know all you need to accomplish beforehand?

Documentation is easy when you don't need research.

Documentation beforehand is not possible when you need research to even figure out how to implement something.

When implementing a compiler, the language standard is the major part of the documentation. And it exists before the compiler is written. So the extra documentation relates to implementation-specific behaviour, command-line switches etc.

When creating a new programming language, you don't get the documentation until after - you can't document until you know what the language will end up being. The majority of creating a new programming language is research. Testing what happens if going different routes etc.

Inventions just can not be documented before the invention have been made. Because if you do document it beforehand, then you must obviously already have made the invention to know what to document. So obviously impossible to do.

We have had this debate before - you just don't seem to be involved in any projects that does include inventions or research. And because of that, you just can not conceive that it exists.

List of 92 messages in thread
TopicAuthorDate
has linux had its chips?      Jez Smith      04/06/12 05:09      
   some weirdo in sandals a ponytail        Andy Neil      04/06/12 05:38      
      Problem is      Jez Smith      04/06/12 06:16      
      possibly, but not only      Erik Malund      04/06/12 08:11      
      It's all in the history ... and "read the code" doesn't work      Richard Erlacher      04/06/12 16:39      
         Good points!      Andy Neil      04/07/12 14:48      
            Why not a firm objective?      Richard Erlacher      04/08/12 00:32      
               Lots of projects have a large percentage research        Per Westermark      04/08/12 14:58      
                  I knew you'd have to come in with something irrelevant      Richard Erlacher      04/08/12 19:29      
                     Try document an invention before it's invented...      Per Westermark      04/08/12 20:16      
                        Here's some research for you, Per      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 13:03      
                           Richard to give an example      Erik Malund      04/09/12 13:16      
                              I'd like YOU, Erik, to come up with one example ...      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 13:42      
                                 Always prejudice from Richard      Per Westermark      04/09/12 23:14      
                                 'documenting' means many things      Jim Granville      04/10/12 01:11      
                                 here we go again      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:00      
                                    when you're wrong, you're wrong      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 10:52      
                                       I do not have a microscope and probes that small      Erik Malund      04/12/12 12:30      
                                          So you've made no observations ... you just guessed ...      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:22      
                                             and that irks you immensely      Erik Malund      04/15/12 06:33      
                                                What did you do, aside from guessing?      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 09:04      
                                                   then please, tell me      Erik Malund      04/15/12 15:45      
                                                      Are you willing to explore this in detail?      Richard Erlacher      04/16/12 09:07      
                                                         now you are jumping      Erik Malund      04/16/12 09:38      
                           Your references aren't exactly backing your view      Per Westermark      04/09/12 23:39      
                              It's not about me ... it's about process      Richard Erlacher      04/10/12 00:08      
                                 But processes contains feedback loops      Per Westermark      04/10/12 00:56      
                                    I believe you've gone off-the-rails, Per      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:04      
                                       But getty isn't Linux      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:28      
                                          it's a small piece, but it's an example      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:10      
                                             But not of Linux      Per Westermark      04/15/12 07:08      
                                                It was part of the distribution.      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 09:06      
                                 'Research' can mean many things      Jim Granville      04/10/12 01:00      
                                    Yes, but that's in a different context      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:11      
                                       You still haven't told what Linux documentation you miss      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:44      
                                          I don't know what you mean      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 02:28      
                                             Still claims based on assumptions and not facts      Per Westermark      04/15/12 07:19      
                                                Not everyone is completely stupid      Richard Erlacher      04/15/12 08:28      
                                                   But what is the relevance today?      Per Westermark      04/15/12 10:08      
                                                      I've no opinion about the current LINUX      Richard Erlacher      04/16/12 09:16      
                                                         and, you Richard, who loves living in the past      Erik Malund      04/16/12 09:40      
                                                            just a minute, Erik      Richard Erlacher      04/17/12 09:36      
                                                               Examples?      Per Westermark      04/17/12 10:42      
                                                                  Nothing has changed since 15 years ago ...      Richard Erlacher      04/17/12 23:03      
                                                                     at least not Richards opinions :)      Erik Malund      04/18/12 07:42      
                                                                     Still lots of assumptions and unbacked claims      Per Westermark      04/18/12 11:59      
                                 Oh, Richard, I have a job for you      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:14      
                           I had Yourdons first book as manuscript and ...      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:11      
                              be careful ...      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 10:23      
                                 were you once a bartender ...      Erik Malund      04/12/12 10:47      
                                    You have to accept the difference ...      Richard Erlacher      04/12/12 11:14      
                                 We are careful      Per Westermark      04/12/12 11:01      
                     Hog Wash.....        Michael Karas      04/08/12 21:57      
                        Odd that you see it that way ...      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 11:24      
                     I just documented fully      Erik Malund      04/09/12 06:43      
               Because an "Objective" is not a final product specification        Andy Neil      04/09/12 02:36      
                  I have to disagree ... the objective specification is step 1      Richard Erlacher      04/09/12 11:36      
            documentation        Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:02      
               Definitely not the "usual response"      Per Westermark      04/09/12 22:47      
   Android      Joseph Hebert      04/06/12 09:31      
      I don't think so      Jez Smith      04/06/12 12:58      
         Don't agree      Per Westermark      04/07/12 07:05      
      all due respect, no.      Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:11      
         Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious      Erik Malund      04/09/12 11:40      
            re: Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious      Andy Peters      04/11/12 18:31      
               but 95% of the population does not need....      Erik Malund      04/12/12 07:35      
                  Web browsing normally the most power-hungry you can do      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:32      
                  re: 95%      Andy Peters      04/12/12 10:40      
               So how exactly am I wrong?      Joseph Hebert      04/12/12 08:11      
                  But Android is Linux      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:41      
                     Just the opposite        Joseph Hebert      04/12/12 12:11      
                        {sigh}      Andy Peters      04/13/12 10:42      
                           just like the preacher said to the atheist      Erik Malund      04/13/12 11:13      
                  re: How exactly?      Andy Peters      04/12/12 11:51      
      850000 Android phones activated per day, linux video      Frieder Ferlemann      04/09/12 11:25      
   anecdotes...      Jim Granville      04/06/12 15:29      
      These guys...      Jez Smith      04/07/12 01:40      
         digital audio consoles      Andy Peters      04/09/12 11:13      
   The Rasperry Pi Foundation clearly doesn't think so!      Andy Neil      04/09/12 02:41      
      The world isn't just a few companies      Per Westermark      04/09/12 06:47      
   the basic problem with free software is...      Erik Malund      04/10/12 08:33      
      Careful with the use of "Linux". Most things "Linux" aren't!      Per Westermark      04/10/12 08:53      
         I did refer to linux itself      Erik Malund      04/10/12 09:06      
            Wrong hw selected, or just big lack of platform knowledge?      Per Westermark      04/10/12 12:54      
               a port      Erik Malund      04/10/12 13:10      
                  Always danger with low-level code for platform      Per Westermark      04/10/12 14:32      
      True - but "paid-for" is not necessarily any better!      Andy Neil      04/10/12 13:31      
         when selecting any tool      Erik Malund      04/10/12 13:44      
      As Stallman said.....      Steve M. Taylor      04/11/12 15:59      
         free      Erik Malund      04/12/12 08:11      
            All about volume or already existing knowledge/experience      Per Westermark      04/12/12 10:37      
   Well...say what you like about me, and many people do.        Jez Smith      04/11/12 14:43      

Back to Subject List