Re: A proposal for a scientific approach to this question [was Re: I'm struggling with 2219 language again]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It would be interesting to see you apply that.

This is what I have been talking about. The human mind's ability to believe that the whole world sees everything the same way they do. It really is quite amazing.

These so-called gaps often arise because they were unstated assumptions or things that the author believed were patently obvious and didn't need to be stated. Actually didn't know needed to be stated. From his point of view, no one would do it differently. Nothing had been left out and he didn't make the "mistake." What the other guys did was a bug.

There is a much greater range of interpreting these things than it appears that you imagine.

At 2:46 AM +0000 1/9/13, Dick Franks wrote:
On 9 January 2013 01:19, John Day <jeanjour@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]

 One person's gap is another person's bug.  What may be obvious to one as
 something that must occur may not be so to the other.  Then there is that
 fine line between what part of the specification is required for the
 specification and what part is the environment of the implementation.

Disagree

A gap in the specification will result in all implementations having
the same unintended behaviour, because the developers understood and
followed the spec 100%.

Bugs are distinguishable from gaps because they occur in some
implementations but not others and arise from misinterpretation of
some aspect of the specification.  In this context, over-engineering
is a bug, as distinct from competitive advantage.


Dick
--



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]