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

Reply via email to