> > There is nothing scientific about the process of finding a bug at > >all! It may *look* scientific when done properly but it most > >certainly isn't. Far too much intuition and luck involved! > > You don't understand what science is, then.
No, I do, see below. > Science depends > mostly on intuition and luck. It's a creative process, > venturing into unknown territory. Most people misuse the word > "science" to mean a process which is not at all creative, > where things are already known and defined. Which is what I assumed you were doing as that is the commonsest (mis)use of "science" these days. > De-bugging is not > a science, because it's much less creative than science, and > there is far less uncertainty (programming, however, can be a > creative process). Hmmm, not sure that there is far less uncertainty or that it is less creative. I would contend that there is a tremendous amount of what amounts to debugging in science and that it often constitutes the largest part of any experimental endeavour : you design an experiment to test a hypothesis and it doesn't work and so you try to find out why. Sounds like debugging to me. In fact it sounds very like debugging someone else's undocumented code without any source... L. - Automatic footer for [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] unsubscribe discuss To join the announcements list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] subscribe announce To receive a help file, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] help This list is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/discuss%40ppig.org/ If you have any problems or questions, please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
