Lew <lew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Lew <lew@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Studies and experience have consistently shown that
>>> there is more than one "correct" solution for almost every software
>>> requirement. The history of computing has notably omitted attempts to
find
>>> any "true correct" data model or user interface, and has focused
instead on
>>> elucidating principles by which *a* correct solution can be found in
any given
>>> situation.
>
>David Segall wrote:
>> I believe that the relational database,
>
>Never yet implemented, not implemented in the same way by all vendors,
and by
>no means the only database model in production use.
>
>> the spreadsheet,
>
>of which many varieties exist, and remains to this day only one kind of
>do***ent or analytical tool, competing with and usually giving way to
>presentation software and database systems.
>
>> the Xerox [Palo] Alto user interface,
>
>Tweaked, altered and re-interpreted a zillion ways by a zillion vendors.
Open
>Look is not Mac is not Motif is not any of the dissimilar Windows
interfaces.
> A mouse is not a pen on a tablet is not a trackball is not a
>retinal-tracking device. The WIMP interface is one of many, and not the
only
>one in production use; command line remains strong and will never go
away.
>
>> the Java-style virtual machine,
>
>A subject of huge controversy, as evidenced by the vehement C++ vs.
C#/Java
>religious wars. Not a clear winner; certainly not the one "true,
correct"
>execution model.
>
>> models was so intuitively right that they persisted despite the fact
>
>... that to this day many viable alternatives exist and remain
competitive
>with these so called "true, correct" ways.
>
>> that many of the early implementations were unacceptable. Of course,
>> those historical milestones do not contradict your second sentence.
>
>Nor the first. Every single example you cited is one of several
solutions to
>a given problem, e.g., issuing commands to the computer. In each case,
the
>alternative solutions are more viable for certain scenarios, and remain
>popular to this day. Every single one is realized differently by
different
>vendors. None of them are likely to remain the best practice for the
>foreseeable future. Each and every example you cited sup****ts the thesis
that
>there has yet to be found any one "true, correct" solution in software
>engineering.
We seem to have an irreconcilable disagreement that is based on
different views of "true and correct". I think that chocolate cake is
an im****tant concept that we all share. You argue that real chocolate
cake does not exist because nobody has produced a cake that is
entirely chocolate and/or that there are zillions of different recipes
for chocolate cake and/or that there are sound reasons for not eating
chocolate cake. I can't refute any of those arguments. My view is that
the chocolate cake model is "true and correct" because everyone who
reads the desert menu knows what chocolate cake should be and because
chocolate cake has become an im****tant part of the menu.
It seems that you agree that we have a common understanding of a
"relational database" or the "Alto user interface" because you can
argue about them. I assume that you would also agree that both have
had a profound effect on the history of computing. Our disagreement is
therefore only whether those terms describe real, singular, intuitive
models. I think they do. I believe, based on Ed's first use of the
term, that I can use "true and correct" to describe that.
|
