David Wiley wrote: > Perhaps it has to do with a fundamental difference between code and content, > let > us say prose, for example. While there are almost an infinity of ways to code > a > program so that it fulfills a specific purpose, whether or not it fulfills its > express purpose is a rather objective matter. Even the subjective part of > coding, decisions about specific implementation issues, can to some degree > compared objectively in terms of reductions in file size, memory footprint, or > execution time. In other words, the improvement of a program is, pardon the > term, a relatively objective matter.
David, I'd like to think it was as simple as that, but I don't believe it is. How does one objectively evaluate whether a software application, say a game for example, fulfills it's intended purpose? Sure there are some quantifiable performance and capacity criteria you might apply, but those are only a component of the purpose of the program. Content has similar objectives measures: no. of words, pages, diagrams; average length of sentence, vocabulary etc. I contend that one objective measure of the quality of a piece of prose is that of how readily the semantic content is absorbed by the reader. In the field of technical documentation a lousy technical document is one that people don't understand, and a good one is one that makes the content seem obvious (assuming the same degree of factual content). Would you not objectively evaluate the fitness of a software application in precisely the same way as the fitness of prose? Terry
