From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/06 Message-ID: <35F20EA6.A0F7EFB8@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388325149 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <35f23ce2.7649859@news.erols.com> <6snn1b$c90$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ef7dff.24318728@news.erols.com> <35f79e53.98130474@news.erols.com> <6ssb20$c99$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F1BB50.C57557E1@s054.aone.net.au> <6ssnp6$hv3$1@hirame.wwa.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 905055951 12882 203.12.186.26 (6 Sep 1998 04:25:51 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Sep 1998 04:25:51 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-06T04:25:51+00:00 List-Id: Robert Martin wrote: > > Loryn Jenkins wrote in message <35F1BB50.C57557E1@s054.aone.net.au>... > >> I haven't read this book, so I can't say if it is good or bad. Probably > it > >> is very good. However, I don't recognize Mill's authority to add to the > >> definition of SP. Dijkstra coined the term, he has the right to say what > >> gets added to it, and what gets taken away from it. > > > >That's getting a bit extreme, isn't it, Robert? > > > >Academics are forever renegotiating the boundaries in any area of > >discourse. I know, in my area, Systemic-Functional Linguistics, there is > >an awful lot of discussions as to the details, goals, methods and > >boundaries. > > > >To alienate every academic working within the tradition other than the > >founder (Halliday) would seem to me to be nonsense. > > Granted. On the other hand, lets say that I wrote a book in which I said > that the C assert statement was another perfectly acceptable way of > implementing Design by Contract. Yes, but DBC can be implemented with comments. Remember, it's a methodological principle, not a language feature, per se. (It's just *sooo* nice to have compiler support.) I do take your point, though. > And then lets say that some other guy read > my book and quoted it in a newsgroup like this. Would Design by Contract > suddenly now incorporate my use of the C assert statement? I think not. I > think Meyer, and the folks who have studied his work would stake a stance > against such an inclusion. > > I didn't mean to alienate Harlan Mills work; I expect that it is quite good. > But I am also not willing to accept Mathew Heaney's demand that mid exit > loops are part of the structured paradigm just because he quoted Mill's > book. I'll want more substantiation than that. That's true. The academic tradition then, causes one to ask, "Was Dijkstra aware of Mills' work? Was he aware of it? Did he agree / disagree with it? Did Dijkstra treat Mills as 'on the playing field', or 'out of the ball park'? Did their writings target or influence the same sets of practitioners?" All these seem to be social questions. Questions of discourse. Loryn Jenkins