Raoul,
if i skimmed + parsed the paper correctly, it seems like the message is: this is how people talk about programming, and thus we should make our programming systems support those forms of thinking. but i have an alternate hypothesis: given how bad people claim software ends up being, perhaps the paper is showing us what forms of thinking re: programming to avoid. which would then lead to the question of what
Some of the forms of thinking to avoid includes: o getting the requirement right (a lot of software is 'bad' because it was designed to do something other than what it is being used for), alternatively use tool/software that is designed to do the job at hand o employing low quality developers (this form of quality is always hard to measure) o patching software far beyond what is was designed to do
thinking should be used instead? vaguely like the issue between s1/intuition vs. s2/formal thinking. (i don't mean to say that there is something wrong with supporting different mental models. but i wonder which mental models are right/wrong for a given programming issue.) thanks for any thoughts.
-- Derek M. Jones tel: +44 (0) 1252 520 667 Knowledge Software Ltd mailto:de...@knosof.co.uk Source code analysis http://www.knosof.co.uk
