Michael and Robert,
The only theorist I know who deals with these issues in detail is Tom Gilb (
t...@gilb.com) in the decades old *Principles of Software Engineering
Management* and the more recent *Competitive Engineering*. Well, his son,
Kai is now, also writing about these learnability,
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:20 AM, frank fr...@frankhirsch.net wrote:
To sum it up: Either system A is simpler (fewer nodes, no interactions), or
the image you sent is in some essential way misleading.
Or option 3: You are making the same mistake my brilliant CEO makes: that
you are somehow
Right, but it is easy to be too clever. ;-)
From: fonc-boun...@vpri.org [mailto:fonc-boun...@vpri.org] On Behalf Of John
Zabroski
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 10:01 AM
To: Fundamentals of New Computing
Subject: Re: [fonc] System A vs B, what?
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 7:20 AM, frank
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Michael Arnoldus ch...@mu.dk wrote:
So it's still not clear to me what exactly you mean by trustworthiness John
... well it's actually not clear to me what you mean by complexity either,
but in the context of making programmers more productive, complexity
Frank wrote:
Alejandro Garcia wrote:
Which one of the following systems is more complex? (look at the
attached
image) [...] Most peoplo would say that System A is more complex than
system B. [...] But other people would say that System B is simplier.
[...]
I assume here you meant to write
Size in terms of number of bytes or number of lines isn't interesting
to me. It's a variable that is easy to measure, but is dependent on too many
other variables. Just as with any model, we should be looking for variables
as independent as possible.
Complexity of an algorithm without programmers
The picture you gave isn't a system, it's a directed graph. I guess you're
implying anything you imagine to be a system can be represented as a graph
- but what *is* a system?
Also, you can define the complexity of a graph in any way you like. Until
you show that this definition is somehow
John,
On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:50 , John Zabroski wrote:
There are many *forms* of complexity and using just one *metric* seems silly
to me.
Makes sense.
My thoughts on GUIs are precisely intended to make human beings more
valuable, but I would like to dissuade all of you from thinking
Michael Arnoldus wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:50 , John Zabroski wrote:
There are many *forms* of complexity and using just one *metric* seems
silly to me.
Makes sense.
So you suggest we should keep saying complexity without specifying which
kind we're talking about? No! Pick one form of
On Mar 4, 2010, at 23:49 , Andrey Fedorov wrote:
Michael Arnoldus wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:50 , John Zabroski wrote:
There are many *forms* of complexity and using just one *metric* seems silly
to me.
Makes sense.
So you suggest we should keep saying complexity without specifying
Oops, my bad... =)
Sorry to interrupt!
.
.
.
Go on, there's nothing to see... (whistle)
___
fonc mailing list
fonc@vpri.org
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Andrey Fedorov anfedo...@gmail.com wrote:
The picture you gave isn't a system, it's a directed graph. I guess you're
implying anything you imagine to be a system can be represented as a graph
- but what *is* a system?
Well it isn't a system in the same sense
12 matches
Mail list logo
