Not only are the galaxies going to fly apart but our solar system, the planets, our bodies, our cells and ultimately even our atoms (and subatomic particles!).
Thanks for the link. The idea is brilliant and radical (and for perhaps the first time a youtube video where the comments underneath made sense;-) ).
However structure of paper document he accuses of being limiting reflects how our brains are geared to work. Having all those parallel hypertexts and floating links would be quite distracting - cross linking on wikipedia for example is distracting enough on its own. Footnotes, references and asides are what they are for a reason - they are not the actual subject of the document - and hence should not distract the reader whose brain can process only one stream of thought at once.
Besides, as someone else note above, I can't see how this would scale with more than handful of documents. Who's to say what the URI for a piece of text is and where it lives? Does modifying one its "hyper references" modify every instance? And he needs to stop using cheesy terminologies like flinks (floating linnks, apparently!) if he wants to be taken seriously.
Whilst your argument is valid, cost is not the only governing factor when it comes to designing a structure - even if a Channel girder costs peanuts you still need to check your structure for safety and other parameters like say, environmental sustainability. (More material != Better design, irrespective of cost of structure).
I'm not really talking of the rigour of analysis or whether developing a file system is more "complex" than analysing/designing a 3 storied building. But the fact that decision making is supported using calculations that have been arrived at by experimentation, simulation or prototyping makes it a lot more empirical than programming.
I'm not sure if I want to reply to AC's, but I forgot to mention I'm a structural engineer myself by education... Most structures of respectable size fall back on Finite Element Analysis to gauge the response to a variety of loads. [The estimation of loads is a research topic in itself, where the factors of safety comes from a rigorous stochastic-based reliability analysis].
Once analysis has been performed, design is a bit of intuition, but certainly not estimation - it's more of heuristics... so you say, "this worked last time, let me try this option and analyse if it'll work this time too."
Going by the wikipedia definition decisions made in typical software development cycles don't seem to rely on a justification based mathematical or physical analysis. Admittedly I might be generalising, but is it more of a soft-skill then? ie something that you acquire on your own rather than something that can be formally taught or imparted as training? Makes you wince when you see all those job adverts asking for programmers to work in their "engineering departments"...
Disc: I'm a coder myself, working in a structural engineering environment, so watching people design buildings around me feels more like "real" engineering...
Go on, mod me down now.
Mod parent up. Software engineering is a skill (a la pottery) which has a few basic principles and is built upon through experience and intuition. Other forms of engineering (take structural engineering) for example fall back upon rigourous and empirical calculations that arise from training and formal education. That is not to decry the profession of software engineering(I am one myself) but I say that to differentiate it from the conventional trades of engineering that exist.
You can justify the design of a bridge built to carry a certain load under certain conditions under some assumed factors of safety but how can you, say, justify _empirically_ that the class architecture you designed is the best that could be or how c++ is better for a particular task than Python is. You can only quote from experience, gut feel and hearsay(for some;) ) but can you show me the math?
Software engineering I feel is a craft, a certain art form where you can exhibit your wizardry, but it's still not something you CANNOT pick up without 4+ years of engg school training, whcih is the case with most other established forms of engineering.
I am a structural engineer; and sorry to break the news to you, but that's what most structural engineers use for design. Typically analysis is done in one of these commercially available analysis packages and post processing and design is carried out with the help of spreadsheets. Real world engineering involves plenty of approximations and safety factors that are arrived at using stochastics and reliability analysis. Slightly different from what your 'physics and math folks' do.
I don't want to drive over a bridge they are designing... YOu probably already do
Just shows that people in this part of the world have expanded their musical horizons more than most anonymous cowards like you have... Wait, don't bother.. you probably listen to brittany spiars anyways...
Oh, and btw, have you ever encountered the message "This ID is taken" when you register for a mail server?
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are the galaxies going to fly apart but our solar system, the planets, our bodies, our cells and ultimately even our atoms (and subatomic particles!).
Is this a good time to take out mortgage then?
Thanks for the link. The idea is brilliant and radical (and for perhaps the first time a youtube video where the comments underneath made sense ;-) ).
However structure of paper document he accuses of being limiting reflects how our brains are geared to work. Having all those parallel hypertexts and floating links would be quite distracting - cross linking on wikipedia for example is distracting enough on its own. Footnotes, references and asides are what they are for a reason - they are not the actual subject of the document - and hence should not distract the reader whose brain can process only one stream of thought at once.
Besides, as someone else note above, I can't see how this would scale with more than handful of documents. Who's to say what the URI for a piece of text is and where it lives? Does modifying one its "hyper references" modify every instance? And he needs to stop using cheesy terminologies like flinks (floating linnks, apparently!) if he wants to be taken seriously.
I'm not really talking of the rigour of analysis or whether developing a file system is more "complex" than analysing/designing a 3 storied building. But the fact that decision making is supported using calculations that have been arrived at by experimentation, simulation or prototyping makes it a lot more empirical than programming.
I'm not sure if I want to reply to AC's, but I forgot to mention I'm a structural engineer myself by education... Most structures of respectable size fall back on Finite Element Analysis to gauge the response to a variety of loads. [The estimation of loads is a research topic in itself, where the factors of safety comes from a rigorous stochastic-based reliability analysis]. Once analysis has been performed, design is a bit of intuition, but certainly not estimation - it's more of heuristics... so you say, "this worked last time, let me try this option and analyse if it'll work this time too."
Going by the wikipedia definition decisions made in typical software development cycles don't seem to rely on a justification based mathematical or physical analysis. Admittedly I might be generalising, but is it more of a soft-skill then? ie something that you acquire on your own rather than something that can be formally taught or imparted as training? Makes you wince when you see all those job adverts asking for programmers to work in their "engineering departments"... Disc: I'm a coder myself, working in a structural engineering environment, so watching people design buildings around me feels more like "real" engineering... Go on, mod me down now.
Mod parent up. Software engineering is a skill (a la pottery) which has a few basic principles and is built upon through experience and intuition. Other forms of engineering (take structural engineering) for example fall back upon rigourous and empirical calculations that arise from training and formal education. That is not to decry the profession of software engineering(I am one myself) but I say that to differentiate it from the conventional trades of engineering that exist.
;) ) but can you show me the math?
You can justify the design of a bridge built to carry a certain load under certain conditions under some assumed factors of safety but how can you, say, justify _empirically_ that the class architecture you designed is the best that could be or how c++ is better for a particular task than Python is. You can only quote from experience, gut feel and hearsay(for some
Software engineering I feel is a craft, a certain art form where you can exhibit your wizardry, but it's still not something you CANNOT pick up without 4+ years of engg school training, whcih is the case with most other established forms of engineering.
This happened years ago at IIT Madras, India http://www.civil.iitm.ac.in/events/paper-bridge.html
No, and they don't run linux either, in case you were wondering...
Just shows that people in this part of the world have expanded their musical horizons more than most anonymous cowards like you have... Wait, don't bother.. you probably listen to brittany spiars anyways... Oh, and btw, have you ever encountered the message "This ID is taken" when you register for a mail server?