I would have thought it patently obvious that debugging a program is
directly analogous to scientific experimentation:
1. Create an hypothesis about the bug
2. Design a data/test framework in which to extract information
3. Execute constructed test and obtain data
Russel,
I would have thought it patently obvious that debugging a program is
directly analogous to scientific experimentation:
1. Create an hypothesis about the bug
2. Design a data/test framework in which to extract information
3. Execute constructed test and obtain
Lindsay Marshall wrote:
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
In fact it sounds very like debugging
someone else's undocumented code without any source...
Yes it is. The most obvious example is genetic research.
Nature is infinitely more complex than anything
humans have devised, so the uncertainly in science is
far greater than in de-bugging.
Both
I would have thought it patently obvious that debugging a program is
directly analogous to scientific experimentation:
1. Create an hypothesis about the bug
2. Design a data/test framework in which to extract information
3. Execute constructed test and obtain data
And there is a lot of subtlety involved in scientific
research which is not at all obvious and which is not on your list.
Which renders it all unscientific in many people's eyes. (Which is why
it never gets mentioned in discussions of scientific method)
L.
- Automatic footer for [EMAIL
At 2:30 PM +0100 7/8/02, Lindsay Marshall wrote:
And there is a lot of subtlety involved in scientific
research which is not at all obvious and which is not on your list.
Which renders it all unscientific in many people's eyes. (Which is why
it never gets mentioned in discussions of
