That paper: https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/education/SE-Intro/fakeit.pdf
argues *for* guidelines for software development. So, it validates my point in the most direct sense. It *also* argues against inferring from Nick's idea that there might be such a thing as Laws of Software Development Procedure, in that the ideal is never met. So, it validates my point about heuristics and best practices from that perspective, too. Did you intend to say that this paper is contrary to Nick's point? Or contrary to my point? On 4/15/20 8:02 AM, Prof David West wrote: > A contrarian position: David Parnas, "The Rational Design Process: How and > Why to Fake It." > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020, at 8:43 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: >> No guidelines for how much to ship to any given hospital. No guidelines >> on dosage. No guidelines. We don't build bridges that way. We don't >> write software that way. We don't cook food that way. Etc. Why should >> we "treat" patients that way? -- ☣ uǝlƃ .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
