Nick. if you are talking about my paper, here is the link I posted to Gary that you might not have seen.
https://objectguild.com/papers/westProgrammingHard2019.pdf davew On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, at 6:02 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Here! Here! The Paper, the Paper!!! > > Nicholas Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology > Clark University > [email protected] > https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Gary Schiltz > *Sent:* Saturday, February 8, 2020 6:41 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Curmudgeons Unite! > > Please post a link to your paper. I for one would love to read it. > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 3:45 AM Prof David West <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jon, >> >> As an observer of software "engineering" since its inception in 1968 (my >> first job as a programmer was that fall, and that spring/summer is when the >> NATO conference first coined the phrase), I can and will (braggadocio here) >> state that most software CANNOT be engineered, precision or otherwise, and >> all that we have learned in the past 52 years in both computer science and >> software engineering is essentially irrelevant to the production of >> application level software. >> >> The protocols that ensure cat photos are scattered into packets traversing >> vast segments of the Internet to be reassembled and presented on you phone >> in real time, is an example of the minority of software that can be >> engineered. The vote counting app _could not have been_. >> >> The difference is that the first replicates, in software, a deterministic >> machine with limited variables, all of which can be known and quantified, >> limited relations among variables, all of which can be known and stated; and >> the second one is a complex system where variables and relations are highly >> dynamic, idiosyncratic, and, often, quite literally unknowable. >> >> I just completed a sixty-page essay on this subject "Why Programming is Hard >> and Software Development is (Mostly) Impossible" that addresses this issue. >> If you would like to read, let me know and I will send you a link or the >> paper. >> >> Making things worse is the superstructure around software development — all >> the methodologies, all the frameworks, all the management levels, all the >> practices that supposedly guide/govern the process of developing software. >> >> Icing on the cake, is attitude. Those that contract for software EXPECT that >> the project will fail and/or that what they get will be a pale imitation of >> what they wanted, full of bugs and inconsistencies. The development team >> also EXPECTS the project to fail, for different reasons, but fail >> nevertheless. >> >> And roughly 90-percent of the time both sides have their expectations >> realized. (60-65 % of projects started are abandoned without any delivery, >> the other 20-25 percent are those pale imitations over budget and taking >> twice the time.) >> >> One more factor - the game is rigged. Those that might actually be able to >> deliver reasonable software applications are not allowed to play in the >> game. Acronym and Shadow came into existence because people in Hillary >> Clinton's campaign thought they saw a way to make money and used their >> connections to get established and make contracts. The "bid" process was >> laughable, the specs being written such that no one but Shadow could comply >> and in a time frame that Microsoft, et. al. were not able to respond >> adequately. >> >> Half a billion dollars were spent on the Obamacare website and another >> half-billion to get it to work after the initial failure. A startup team of >> Web-developers built the site with full functionality, including calculating >> subsidies (supposedly the hard part) in a week. Their site was demoed on >> Sixty Minutes. But they would never have been allowed to bid on the original >> project because they did not meet Federal procurement guidelines which were >> rigged to very large companies most of whom have a remarkably long history >> of spectacular failures on past projects. >> >> Frothing at the mouth so much, am at risk of dehydration. >> >> dave >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, at 8:54 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: >>> My intention in drawing attention to critical application >>> development is an attempt to deepen the discussion >>> around 'apps' and rhetoric. In the discussions around >>> app usage in the democratic primaries, the target appears >>> to be the vulnerability which exists today because >>> programmers today are a bunch of python hacks who >>> never read Knuth. Yet, not a single Friam mother-church >>> meeting passes without a discussion of the precision >>> engineering embodied in our Porches, Teslas, or iphones. >>> >>> Of particular interest to me in directing this rhetorical frame >>> are the so-called-on-wikipedia FBI-Apple encryption dispute >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_dispute> >>> and the Target corp data breach <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.04940.pdf> of >>> 2013. In the first case, >>> the federal government is confronted by the reality that a >>> phone manufacturer *can* in fact make cryptographically >>> challenging hand held devices. Further we can use this >>> powerful technology for sending our family cat pictures >>> which arrive at their target destinations almost without >>> fail and near instantaneously. There is a sense of *justified* >>> *indignation* when the cat photo takes more than a second >>> to be delivered. The state-of-the-art is such that we *can* >>> have nice things. >>> >>> In the second case, a data breach is exploited in the POS system >>> of big box corporation which sells mostly useless things. Next, >>> a public rhetoric emerges similar to the rhetoric I am witnessing >>> here with the democratic primaries. Instead of pointing out that >>> Target corp doesn't consider our privacy a critical concern, we >>> speak of how impossible it is to have privacy and how vulnerable >>> we feel because Target corp is a critical institution. >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> ============================================================ >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >>> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
