On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Claes Wallin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not sure how many on the list are interested in software > development methodology, but isn't he missing the chance here to invoke > "extreme architecture"?
Arnold Kling has some background in software, and he usually reads and responds to comments on his blog. You could post your observation as a comment on his blog...maybe he will have a response. > I believe a "safety-net of circuit breakers" > _can_ be designed in an iterative way, learning from mistakes, adapting > to new problems, while still maintaining a well-designed whole. I have > to admit that I haven't seen anybody trying. I'm not sure I see what you are getting at. Are you talking about an expert system or neural net sort of thing? But they tend to be rather chaotic, not "well-designed whole". How would a designed system learn from mistakes? > His "3. Housecleaning" meme seems to be heading in this direction, but > he doesn't seem to acknowledge that it is actually an iterative, > feedback-oriented version of "2. Architecture": One of the commenters on his blog (Rubber Rebel or something like that) makes a similar point. It almost seems like you and Arnold are converging on a system where you have two competing groups, the regulation makers and the regulation destroyers, one group making new regulations, and the other group removing all regulations that have unintended consequences. Is that what you meant by an iterative system? _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
