wise words
Bob Badour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs quoted from Eric S.
Raymond:
"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase
that is just good enough."
He was talking about Bell Labs' attempt to replace Unix with a better
unix-like OS. But his words ring just as true for SQL and a host of
other computing languages.
erk
XML. Having used Java interfaces like JDBC, JMS, JNDI, and countless
others (including JNI, interfacing to "native" - typically C -
libraries), there is little to compare to the horrors of XML libraries
and parser confusion (DOM, JDOM, JAXB, Xalan, Xerces, blah blah).
There's no indication that XML and its offspring "technologies" are
"good enough" - yet no immediate sign of them going away. Unless, of
course, "good enough" applies to job security, in which case:
explanation complete.
The horror... the horror...
- erk
"Are you quite sure that all those bells and whistles, all those
wonderful facilities of your so called powerful programming languages,
belong to the solution set rather than the problem set?"
- Edsger W. Dijkstra
x
"erk" <eric...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147981110....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I might replace "good enough" with "prevalent enough" in the case of
> XML. Having used Java interfaces like JDBC, JMS, JNDI, and countless
> others (including JNI, interfacing to "native" - typically C -
> libraries), there is little to compare to the horrors of XML libraries
> and parser confusion (DOM, JDOM, JAXB, Xalan, Xerces, blah blah).
These are made by smart peoples because the smarter ones are too busy to do
anything about it.
We like inventions.
Erwin
A database scientist and a database engineer are walking side by side
on the street. They see a beautiful woman on the other side, and want
to cross the street, but then someone tells them that if they're
heading for that beautiful woman, they can only do so by traveling each
time only half of the remaining distance.
Says the scientist : "Well, if that's so, then there's no point in
trying, for I know I'll never get there", and he goes on.
Says the engineer : "Well, I know equally well I'll never actually get
there, but at any rate, I'll surely get close enough", and he got the
girl.
My point : technical purity is not everything. Replacing something
that's "good enough" with something that's better will only be done if
that replacement can be expected to give an acceptable return on the
investment required. If that cannot reasonably be expected, then any
sensible person (and that includes you, Bob) will stick with what's
"good enough".
With apologies to the female part of the audience for the male
chauvinist pig attitude implied in the joke.
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>I stumbled across some wise words that resonate with me at
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs quoted from Eric S.
>>Raymond:
>>
>>"The most dangerous enemy of a better solution is an existing codebase
>>that is just good enough."
>>
>>He was talking about Bell Labs' attempt to replace Unix with a better
>>unix-like OS. But his words ring just as true for SQL and a host of
>>other computing languages.
>
> A database scientist and a database engineer are walking side by side
> on the street. They see a beautiful woman on the other side, and want
> to cross the street, but then someone tells them that if they're
> heading for that beautiful woman, they can only do so by traveling each
> time only half of the remaining distance.
>
> Says the scientist : "Well, if that's so, then there's no point in
> trying, for I know I'll never get there", and he goes on.
> Says the engineer : "Well, I know equally well I'll never actually get
> there, but at any rate, I'll surely get close enough", and he got the
> girl.
>
> My point : technical purity is not everything.
Neither is fallacious reasoning.
Replacing something
> that's "good enough" with something that's better will only be done if
> that replacement can be expected to give an acceptable return on the
> investment required. If that cannot reasonably be expected, then any
> sensible person (and that includes you, Bob) will stick with what's
> "good enough".
Your argument has a flaw related to primate psychology. We silly monkeys
place greater value on what we have than on what we can get.
See:
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002849.html
> With apologies to the female part of the audience for the male
> chauvinist pig attitude implied in the joke.
I suggest you owe a greater debt to the scientist part of the audience.
Coming from an engineering background myself, I was always fond of the
joke about the engineering student and the medical student.
Keith H Duggar
> Erwin wrote:
> > With apologies to the female part of the audience for
> > the male chauvinist pig attitude implied in the joke.
>
> I suggest you owe a greater debt to the scientist part of
> the audience. Coming from an engineering background
> myself, I was always fond of the joke about the
> engineering student and the medical student.
Coming from a chemical engineering background I enjoyed the
generic name for Viagra : anti-micoxaphloppin.
David Cressey
"Bob Badour" <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:5S3bg.9464$A26.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Those are wise words indeed. I've heard some other wise words, shuch as:
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
No one motto covers all the cases.
David Cressey
> XML. Having used Java interfaces like JDBC, JMS, JNDI, and countless
> others (including JNI, interfacing to "native" - typically C -
> libraries), there is little to compare to the horrors of XML libraries
> and parser confusion (DOM, JDOM, JAXB, Xalan, Xerces, blah blah).
>
One of my catch phrases is: "not better enough".
Erwin
we can get. ..."
You seem to take it for granted axiomatically that indeed we CAN "get"
that something better. If that were true, you're absolutely right.
But I'm a bit more skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it.
Frank Hamersley
> " ... We silly monkeys place greater value on what we have than on what
> we can get. ..."
>
> You seem to take it for granted axiomatically that indeed we CAN "get"
> that something better. If that were true, you're absolutely right.
hence "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"!
> But I'm a bit more skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it.
and "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see".
Of course some in CDT are much much smarter than these aged wisdoms!
Cheers, Frank.
x
"Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Ggjcg.8872$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Erwin wrote:
> > " ... We silly monkeys place greater value on what we have than on what
> > we can get. ..."
> >
> > You seem to take it for granted axiomatically that indeed we CAN "get"
> > that something better. If that were true, you're absolutely right.
>
> hence "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Proverb:_A_bird_in_the_hand
> > But I'm a bit more skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> and "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see".
The text in CDT is something that we hear or something that we see ?
> Of course some in CDT are much much smarter than these aged wisdoms!
I've read tons of proverbs but I forgotten most of them.
Bob Badour
>
> Erwin wrote:
>>
>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>
>>> He was talking about Bell Labs' attempt to replace Unix with a
>>> better unix-like OS. But his words ring just as true for SQL and a
>>> host of other computing languages.
...
>> Replacing something that's "good enough" with something that's better
>> will only be done if that replacement can be expected to give an
>> acceptable return on the investment required. If that cannot
>> reasonably be expected, then any sensible person (and that includes
>> you, Bob) will stick with what's "good enough".
...
> " ... We silly monkeys place greater value on what we have than on what
> we can get. See: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002849.html ..."
>
> You seem to take it for granted axiomatically that indeed we CAN "get"
> that something better. If that were true, you're absolutely right.
> But I'm a bit more skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it.
In short, you are just close-minded or perhaps lack the ability of
abstract reasoning. Given the well-known problems with 1) NULL, 2)
duplicates and 3) poor support for domains or types, the fact that we
can get something better than SQL is a foregone conclusion. One does not
need to take that as an axiom to prove the result.
Everything you have posted here has been not only false but fallacious.
Plonk.
Frank Hamersley
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:Ggjcg.8872$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Erwin wrote:
>>> " ... We silly monkeys place greater value on what we have than on what
>>> we can get. ..."
>>>
>>> You seem to take it for granted axiomatically that indeed we CAN "get"
>>> that something better. If that were true, you're absolutely right.
>> hence "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush"!
>
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Proverb:_A_bird_in_the_hand
>
>>> But I'm a bit more skeptical. I'll believe it when I see it.
>> and "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see".
>
> The text in CDT is something that we hear or something that we see ?
Touche! Prolly the former given the SNR.
>> Of course some in CDT are much much smarter than these aged wisdoms!
>
> I've read tons of proverbs but I forgotten most of them.
But that only says something about you and nothing about the veracity of
the proverbs. :-)
Cheers, Frank.
x
> x wrote:
> > "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:Ggjcg.8872$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> Of course some in CDT are much much smarter than these aged wisdoms!
> > I've read tons of proverbs but I forgotten most of them.
> But that only says something about you and nothing about the veracity of
> the proverbs. :-)
Proverbs are made by us and only say something about us.
Roy Hann
> Proverbs are made by us and only say something about us.
Either you are equivocating or you are uttering a triviality. The ancient
"us" who coined most proverbs is a different "us" than inhabit c.d.t. today.
Which is it?
Roy
(This time I *am* taking the piss. Just thought I'd spell that out, so
there's no confusion.)
x
"Roy Hann" <spec...@processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
news:abidnT91MeJOQ-_Z...@pipex.net...
> "x" <x...@not-exists.org> wrote in message news:e4ulgq$tf4$1...@emma.aioe.org...
> > Proverbs are made by us and only say something about us.
> Either you are equivocating or you are uttering a triviality.
I could say the same about Frank here:
Frank:>> Of course some in CDT are much much smarter than these aged
wisdoms!
x:> I've read tons of proverbs but I forgotten most of them.
Frank:But that only says something about you and nothing about the veracity
of
the proverbs. :-)
x:> > Proverbs are made by us and only say something about us.
> The ancient
> "us" who coined most proverbs is a different "us" than inhabit c.d.t.
today.
> Which is it?
The "us" that "inhabit" c.d.t. are the great-great-great-...-great-nephews
of the ancient "us" who coined most proverbs.
prov-erb (prov'uhrb) n., v. <-erbed, -erb-ing>
n.
1. a short popular saying, usu. of unknown
and ancient origin, that expresses
effectively some commonplace truth or
useful thought; adage; saw.
folk-lore (fohk'lôr , -lohr ) n.
1. the traditional beliefs, legends,
customs, etc., of a people; lore of a
people.
2. the study of such lore.
3. a body of widely held but false or
unsubstantiated beliefs.
Us are the folks.
> (This time I *am* taking the piss. Just thought I'd spell that out, so
> there's no confusion.)
Sorry, I don't understand you here.
David Cressey
"Erwin" <e.s...@myonline.be> wrote in message
news:1148297082.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I take it for granted that, for any given thing, something better will
eventually come along.
The operative word here is "eventually". During my days as a database
designer/developer, I would have been foolish to wait until something better
came along. I worked with the tools I had.
It's equally valid for a theoretician or a DBMS engineer to look at the
state of the art, and dream up things that never were, and ask "why not?"
Erwin
distinguishing "wise words" from "aged wisdom" ?
Or is that just a matter of what one absolutely wants to believe and
what not ?
Erwin
better
>> will only be done if that replacement can be expected to give an
>> acceptable return on the investment required. If that cannot
>> reasonably be expected, then any sensible person (and that includes
>> you, Bob) will stick with what's "good enough".
> Everything you have posted here has been not only false but fallacious.
If my observation regarding how the economic world operates is
fallacious, then I don't think I would ever even WANT to be right again.
Frank Hamersley
> "Roy Hann" <spec...@processed.almost.meat> wrote in message
>>> Proverbs are made by us and only say something about us.
>
>> Either you are equivocating or you are uttering a triviality.
>
> I could say the same about Frank here:
You "could" - but you would be wrong on both counts!
No sure where the "folk" bit came from but if you are happy to associate
with them go hard son!
[..]
Cheers, Frank.
x
I don't know about that.
I can only notice that "aged wisdom" might show its age.
x
> No sure where the "folk" bit came from but if you are happy to associate
> with them go hard son!
3. (used with a pl. v.) people as the
carriers of culture, esp. as
representing a society's mores, customs,
and traditions.
You are a part of "them".
Frank Hamersley
Someone tell him "he's dreamin'"!
Cheers, Frank.
Frank Hamersley
You could also presume it has been tested on many occasions and still
prevails. A bit like Codd's 12 in this place.
Cheers, Frank.
x
The ones who don't have old men/women around should buy some.
x
I'm not aware of the bad connotations the word "folks" might have in your
area.
Maybe you misread what I said ?
Frank Hamersley
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:mVKcg.9531$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> x wrote:
>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hDCcg.9382$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>> No sure where the "folk" bit came from but if you are happy to
> associate
>>>> with them go hard son!
>>> 3. (used with a pl. v.) people as the
>>> carriers of culture, esp. as
>>> representing a society's mores, customs,
>>> and traditions.
>>>
>>> You are a part of "them".
>
>> Someone tell him "he's dreamin'"!
>
> I'm not aware of the bad connotations the word "folks" might have in your
> area.
> Maybe you misread what I said ?
I don't think so - you offered 2 choices - proverb vs folklore - I was
associating myself with the former. Those arrayed against were
accordingly (IMO) "folk".
Cheers, Frank.
x
LOL
x
Frank Hamersley
> Have you counted your snakes recently ?
Yes (frequently) - still NULL! :-)
Cheers, Frank.
David Cressey
Wouldn't it be nice if the count were zero, instead?
[ducking]
.
Frank Hamersley
It would certainly be safer for moi! However in the real world 'le
slither' is prolly still about somewhere - but given it is autumn I
suspect there is some low lying hibernation happening - hence NULL at
this moment!
Cheers, Frank.
x
Have you counted the *missing* snakes ?
dawn
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:EThdg.10553$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > David Cressey wrote:
> > > "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Dn4dg.10138$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > >> x wrote:
> > >>> Have you counted your snakes recently ?
> > >> Yes (frequently) - still NULL! :-)
> > >>
> > >> Cheers, Frank.
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be nice if the count were zero, instead?
> >
> > It would certainly be safer for moi! However in the real world 'le
> > slither' is prolly still about somewhere - but given it is autumn I
> > suspect there is some low lying hibernation happening - hence NULL at
> > this moment!
>
> Have you counted the *missing* snakes ?
It sounds like he is only aware of an empty set of snakes, which we can
record as a value while he attempts to figure out what the lack of a
value might mean.
--dawn
Marshall
> Have you counted the *missing* snakes ?
Samual Jackson unavailable for comment.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/
Marshall
Frank Hamersley
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> David Cressey wrote:
>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Have you counted your snakes recently ?
>>>> Yes (frequently) - still NULL! :-)
>>>>
>> It would certainly be safer for moi! However in the real world 'le
>> slither' is prolly still about somewhere - but given it is autumn I
>> suspect there is some low lying hibernation happening - hence NULL at
>> this moment!
>
> Have you counted the *missing* snakes ?
How do you enumerate a missing snake(s)?
Cheers, Frank.
x
"One idiot throw a stone in the water and ten wise guys are not able to get
it out."
Frank Hamersley
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:aTCdg.11096$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> x wrote:
>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>> David Cressey wrote:
>>>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> x wrote:
>>>>>>> Have you counted your snakes recently ?
>>>>>> Yes (frequently) - still NULL! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Wouldn't it be nice if the count were zero, instead?
>>>> It would certainly be safer for moi! However in the real world 'le
>>>> slither' is prolly still about somewhere - but given it is autumn I
>>>> suspect there is some low lying hibernation happening - hence NULL at
>>>> this moment!
>>> Have you counted the *missing* snakes ?
>
>> How do you enumerate a missing snake(s)?
>
> "One idiot throw a stone in the water and ten wise guys are not able to get
> it out."
Not so wise if they bother! There is always plenty more stones where the
one came from.
This could be a parody of trying to educate Delta (apols to Helen Reddy).
Cheers, Frank.
x
That might be, but then they are in the wrong hand.
Frank Hamersley
Ah so - then we had better get Bob to pole-axe the idiot before the
stone is cast!
Cheers, Frank.
x
NoI is flawless to cast the stone.
x
Which hand is wrong ?
The other one.
Frank Hamersley
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:j%Reg.288$ap3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> x wrote:
>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>> news:y2Ceg.13194$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>> x wrote:
>>>>> "Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:aTCdg.11096$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>>> x wrote:
>
>>>>> "One idiot throw a stone in the water and ten wise guys are not able
> to
>>> get
>>>>> it out."
>>>> Not so wise if they bother! There is always plenty more stones where
> the
>>>> one came from.
>>> That might be, but then they are in the wrong hand.
>
>> Ah so - then we had better get Bob to pole-axe the idiot before the
>> stone is cast!
>
> NoI is flawless to cast the stone.
Isn't that meant to be "Let he with no stones cast the first!"
David Cressey
"They'll stone you when you're tryin' to be so good,
they'll stone you, just like they said they would..."
x
"David Cressey" <dcre...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:B5Xeg.1728$Oa3.742@trndny09...
> "They'll stone you when you're tryin' to be so good,
> they'll stone you, just like they said they would..."
What if you are not tryin' ?
What if you are ?
Frank Hamersley
My well is dry so the bucket must retain its hole no matter how I try
Dear Liza!
x
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=lagerlof&book=christ&story=well
x
> My well is dry so the bucket must retain its hole no matter how I try
> Dear Liza!
http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=75327#1321470
Frank Hamersley
Well spotted - I'm off to my library to read all 9 manuals!
Cheers, Frank.
x
Don't forget the appendices. :-)