I guess I'm a slashdot contrarian, but I took the
stock drop as a good opportunity to buy more. Time
will tell, but I've already made some good money
on this stock and expect it to do well this
coming year.
As you say, there is a scaling problem. Chhristopher Alexander, in "the Timeless Way of Building", postulates that the ideal community is no more than 7,000 people.
I'v also heard of a theroy that the human brain has evolved to deal with about 150 people.
The questions remains as to whether we can retain this human scale in the face of ever expanding technology.
Object-oriented designs do not address the real issues in systems that maintain complex data structures, such as business applications. That's why there are no gains in modeling business objects; better even, the more you stay away from them, the more robust your programs will be.
Wow! I'd be interested if you have any references to back this up. I have been involved in large distributed enterprise app's that rely heavily on OODA. I can't really imagine what you say being true.
The measure of good OO design is how easily it can evolve and be maintained. Because one thing for sure is known that the requirements will change over time.
Regarding your example of adding address fields, this can be done, even at run-time, using custom attributes. Check out Allen Holub's visual-proxy architecture at http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-1999/jw-0 9-toolbox.html.
We're using something similar. When atrributes get added, we don't have to change a line of code, just some properties files.
There are between 10 and 100 billion neurons in the brain. Each neuron can have up to 10,000 interconnections. The human brain can therefore have more internal states than there are atoms in the universe.
As far as we know, the human brain is the most complex structure yet discovered in the universe. You can never fill it up.
As far as processing power goes, the conscious mind can process about 16 bits/sec. This is in the range of being able to process 7 +- 2 bits at any one time. Of course, the bits can be represent very large concepts or small details (such as a telephone number) depending in how large a chunk size we're focused on at the time.
Finally, recognizing something visually, something we can do in less than a second, might involve something like a computer program that was 100's of instructions long. But millions of instructions wide.
And BTW, does anyone know if or when Cygnus might release their simulator/development system for Playstation 2? I talked to someone from Cygnus yesterday who said you had to get it from Sony. She didn't really know but thought they might release it to anyone later this year.
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest some further analogies for looking at a network or system from a General Systems or Family Systems Theory point of view. (I'm a family therapist/refugee from the US Mangled Care System now writing computer code for a living).
In Systems Theory you can talk about systems which are relatively open or closed. In healthy systems you have a balance between these two extremes. Dysfunctional families have "secrets" they try to keep. Treatment entails, among other things, making the system more open so information can flow in and out. Therapists, teachers and doctors are required by law to disclose child abuse, for example.
What determines the appropriate balance between open and closed systems? Fortunately we have a perfect test, and that is the human genetic code and it's expression, namely us.
Humans have an incredible ability to assess what Christopher Alexander called QWON or "Quality Without A Name," which inspired the software design pattern movement. Literally it is what is pleasing and elegant to the individual and community.
So we can talk about an elegant and pleasing balance between open source and proprietary code. Each has its place, and presumably there is an optimum balance between the two at any one time. Of course, this changes over time. Evolution doesn't really know anything about the future, it merely reacts opportunistically.
From a systems point of view, technolgy is a quite remarkable human achievement. 10 or 20k years or so ago humans domesticated animals and plants. Agriculture, technology and civilization was born and burst forth on the planet.
One problem however was that as soon as man domesticated animals, he also had the tools to treat other humans as cattle. So you had the ascension of royalty where the king could treat his subjects like cattle. And you have the ascension of Bill Gates who can continue to milk the masses just because he can.
It seems to me that this great invention of prehistory brought in a distinctly new kind of system or network. For a lack of a better label, the pre-technology sytem can be called the Village System since everyone lived in small clans most of their lives.
The new system can be called the Stranger or Bureacratic System since it can use technology to scale up to deal with a lot of people, some of whom it is not necessary to know personally. The King doesn't have to know all his subjects to control them. Bill Gates doesn't have to know his customers personally in order to extract tribute to him.
The Open Source Movement and the Internet is an example of a unique interface between the two systems. A Cyber-Community Village System on the one hand, it has evolved to interact and deal remarkably effectively with the larger Bureacratic/Stranger system, on the other hand.
Evolution in the genetic sense is purportedly "blind." It doesn't know, or even care, what will happen tomorrow. However, humans are capable of "conscious Darwinism." We can individually and collectively make decisions effecting the development of the Village and Stranger/Bureacratic systems. If it doesn't have QWON, we can change it!
We can send in our hired guns at DOJ to rummage through Uncle Bill's e-mails. Open up a dysfunctional system. Disclose family secrets which shouldn't be secret. Open the windows and air it out. Make public the api's and file formats. Stop him from using his pile of gold to buy more technology, giving the gold back to the stockholders instead, where it can be invested in more beneficial enterprises.
And in the chaos and dynamism of the bazaar, we can influence the larger system towards QWON in ways that we will see.
If you're asked to give a minimum, ask what the range is for the position. And when they say, "between $60 and 90K", respond, "well, 90's in the ballpark."
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I'm a slashdot contrarian, but I took the
stock drop as a good opportunity to buy more. Time
will tell, but I've already made some good money
on this stock and expect it to do well this
coming year.
There's a myth that the larger the breasts, the
dumber the woman. Actually, it's the larger the
breasts, the dumber the guys.
As you say, there is a scaling problem. Chhristopher Alexander, in "the Timeless Way of Building", postulates that the ideal community is no more than 7,000 people.
I'v also heard of a theroy that the human brain has evolved to deal with about 150 people.
The questions remains as to whether we can retain this human scale in the face of ever expanding technology.
Object-oriented designs do not address the real issues in systems that maintain complex data structures, such as business applications. That's why there are no gains in modeling business objects; better even, the more you stay away from them, the more robust your programs will be.
0 9-toolbox.html.
Wow! I'd be interested if you have any references to back this up. I have been involved in large distributed enterprise app's that rely heavily on OODA. I can't really imagine what you say being true.
The measure of good OO design is how easily it can evolve and be maintained. Because one thing for sure is known that the requirements will change over time.
Regarding your example of adding address fields, this can be done, even at run-time, using custom attributes. Check out Allen Holub's visual-proxy architecture at http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-09-1999/jw-
We're using something similar. When atrributes get added, we don't have to change a line of code, just some properties files.
You can have more than one class per file.
There are between 10 and 100 billion neurons in the brain. Each neuron can have up to 10,000 interconnections. The human brain can therefore have more internal states than there are atoms in the universe.
As far as we know, the human brain is the most complex structure yet discovered in the universe. You can never fill it up.
As far as processing power goes, the conscious mind can process about 16 bits/sec. This is in the range of being able to process 7 +- 2 bits at any one time. Of course, the bits can be represent very large concepts or small details (such as a telephone number) depending in how large a chunk size we're focused on at the time.
Finally, recognizing something visually, something we can do in less than a second, might involve something like a computer program that was 100's of instructions long. But millions of instructions wide.
Here ya' go. Times for a simple embedded loop.
blackdown
jdk117_v3 - 33255ms
ibm 1.1.6 - 32835ms
ibm 1.1.6/jit - 975ms
Try ibm's jikes compiler - it's incredibly fast.
And the first tests using the ibm jvm w/jit is that it's more than 30x faster than blackdown's jdk117_v3 w/o the jit.
It works for me. My favorite java development platform just got better. Thanks, ibm.
I want one!
And BTW, does anyone know if or when Cygnus might release their simulator/development system for Playstation 2? I talked to someone from Cygnus yesterday who said you had to get it from Sony. She didn't really know but thought they might release it to anyone later this year.
Interesting article. I'd like to suggest some further analogies for looking at a network or system from a General Systems or Family Systems Theory point of view. (I'm a family therapist/refugee from the US Mangled Care System now writing computer code for a living).
In Systems Theory you can talk about systems which are relatively open or closed. In healthy systems you have a balance between these two extremes. Dysfunctional families have "secrets" they try to keep. Treatment entails, among other things, making the system more open so information can flow in and out. Therapists, teachers and doctors are required by law to disclose child abuse, for example.
What determines the appropriate balance between open and closed systems? Fortunately we have a perfect test, and that is the human genetic code and it's expression, namely us.
Humans have an incredible ability to assess what Christopher Alexander called QWON or "Quality Without A Name," which inspired the software design pattern movement. Literally it is what is pleasing and elegant to the individual and community.
So we can talk about an elegant and pleasing balance between open source and proprietary code. Each has its place, and presumably there is an optimum balance between the two at any one time. Of course, this changes over time. Evolution doesn't really know anything about the future, it merely reacts opportunistically.
From a systems point of view, technolgy is a quite remarkable human achievement. 10 or 20k years or so ago humans domesticated animals and plants. Agriculture, technology and civilization was born and burst forth on the planet.
One problem however was that as soon as man domesticated animals, he also had the tools to treat other humans as cattle. So you had the ascension of royalty where the king could treat his subjects like cattle. And you have the ascension of Bill Gates who can continue to milk the masses just because he can.
It seems to me that this great invention of prehistory brought in a distinctly new kind of system or network. For a lack of a better label, the pre-technology sytem can be called the Village System since everyone lived in small clans most of their lives.
The new system can be called the Stranger or Bureacratic System since it can use technology to scale up to deal with a lot of people, some of whom it is not necessary to know personally. The King doesn't have to know all his subjects to control them. Bill Gates doesn't have to know his customers personally in order to extract tribute to him.
The Open Source Movement and the Internet is an example of a unique interface between the two systems. A Cyber-Community Village System on the one hand, it has evolved to interact and deal remarkably effectively with the larger Bureacratic/Stranger system, on the other hand.
Evolution in the genetic sense is purportedly "blind." It doesn't know, or even care, what will happen tomorrow. However, humans are capable of "conscious Darwinism." We can individually and collectively make decisions effecting the development of the Village and Stranger/Bureacratic systems. If it doesn't have QWON, we can change it!
We can send in our hired guns at DOJ to rummage through Uncle Bill's e-mails. Open up a dysfunctional system. Disclose family secrets which shouldn't be secret. Open the windows and air it out. Make public the api's and file formats. Stop him from using his pile of gold to buy more technology, giving the gold back to the stockholders instead, where it can be invested in more beneficial enterprises.
And in the chaos and dynamism of the bazaar, we can influence the larger system towards QWON in ways that we will see.
Michael Doherty
http://top.monad.net/~vsi
If you're asked to give a minimum, ask what
the range is for the position. And when they say,
"between $60 and 90K", respond, "well, 90's in
the ballpark."