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
04/10/12 00:56
Read: 730 times

#187086 - But processes contains feedback loops
Responding to: Richard Erlacher's previous message
Richard Erlacher said:
You've still got this all wrong ... Documentation isn't part of the analysis phase, analysis is part of the documentation phase. Moreover, there's no part of research that happens by coding, but then, there'll never be a way to convince YOU, PER the great.


You can't find me wrong about something I haven't said. Or wait a minute. Yes, Richard - you can. But then, you are living in a different world. You are screening every line of text you read based on a calendar year if 1970. Which means that you regularly have to fill in the blanks when a concept doesn't fit the current knowledge in existence 1970.

Next thing: For some reason it seems to be 100% impossible for you to realize that research often does require coding. You can't sit and look at a wall and do real-life research. There are experiments. There are prototypes. There are evaluations.

Research normally includes lots, and lots of coding.

It may include things like: "what will the CPU load be for software-only tone detection of DTMF tones?" Or "what is highest baudrate for a software-only modem on this processor". All because the answer to the above tells if it will be cheaper with a sw-only solution or with dedicated hardware outside. And the above is still a trivial case since the research part is only about consumed resources - not about actual behaviour.

In many situations, the full problem is too complex to solve perfectly. So the task is to find what is good enough. Which stimuli can be ignored? Which stimuli can be approximated? Which stimuli must be measured with high precision or at high speed, and which stimuli can be sampled very seldom? Which stimuli must take precedence? What will be the end result if predication is used? So prototypes are built. Prototypes containing real code. And with good software engineering, that code will be modified multiple times until the total hw/sw design can be shown to solve the problem. At which case the project do not throw away the code, spends months writing a full design document, and then starts coding from scratch. For some reason, companies wants to make money - the main goal is not to employ software developers.

No, Richard. There is no way you can convince me for the simple reason that I would not be allowed to create a full design document based on fantasies (it will be fantasies if not backed by practical tests by me or someone else) and then force someone to write a complete program based exactly on that design and then ship it. Unless possibly the goal is to make a lamp timer, in which case the problem to solve is trivial - there are no research other than to find good components. It's only an engineering task to solve a fixed problem resulting in a competitive product. But then I would probably not be involved - western companies can't compete with this kind of products.

I just never do projects where the goal is to duplicate the exact behavior of an existing product - potentially after one of the components have gone off the market. Companies don't want to duplicate old products - they want products that separates them from their competitors. It's basically the users of a product who might want a replacement copy. The rest of the world wants to figure out what progress there can be, based on advances in other areas.

In the end, the feasibility study at the start of a project normally do contain coding, because no other engineering methods can show something feasible. Especially when feasible includes cost as an important term. It's irrelevant if code can be written for a specific task, if the hardware will be too expensive.

In the end, documentation must be interwoven with coding. There can't be any coding only after the documentation is written expect for trivial projects. You can't just sit down and write a complete design specification for the main electronics controller of a car. You might be able to copy a previous design, but then you obviously have made use of the results from previous coding. In the end, it's all about complexities. We can't document what we don't understand. And to understand, we need prototyping and testing.

Next thing is that many projects are so large, that they aren't economical/practical to perform as a single step. So the project is splitted into many spins. And these spins can't even be fully described either, because some part of the spin is based on roadmap and some parts are based on ongoing feedback from users/testers of previous spins.

You write a subject "It's not about me ... it's about process". But then you still seem to miss that it really is about process. Take a closer at real-life processes. Doesn't matter if it's programming, customer relations, chemistry or something else. Processes normally contains feedback loops. They have iterative patterns, for the simple reason that most processes don't have access to enough input information and a complex enough computation engine to go directly to a final result.

Real-life problems have flowcharts where each box requires a flowchart - and that flowchart will probably also need flowcharts to represent the individual boxes. But then, Richard - please tell us any big, commercial, company that don't make prototypes. After all - prototypes aren't needed if everything can be documented before the first code line is written. That must obviously translate the same for the electronics, mechanics, ... in the product. In a real world, the people who don't need prototypes are the ones who just duplicate someone elses product.

List of 92 messages in thread
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