Re: Market pressures for more reliable software

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote in
message news:3b538445$1$fuzhry$mr2ice@va.news.verio.net...
: In <lDF47.539$9H.206790759@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, on 07/16/2001
:    at 05:37 PM, "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> said:
:
: >Unfortunately, your argument was a straw man, since you used a
: >definition different than the one I referenced in my premise.
:
: ROTF,LMAO!

Based on this non-response response, you apparently concede that you cannot
dispute this point.

: >Since your definition of "centralized programming" seems now to be
: >based on organizational structures, not technology
:
: Now? That's been the case all along.
:
: >(making your earlier discussion of
: >remote job entry somewhat puzzling),
:
: Only to one who doesn't understand the logistics.

Based on this ad hominem response, you apparently concede that you cannot
dispute this fallacy (attempting to prove the widespread existence of an
organizational structure through the existence of technology), and accept
that it weakens your argument.

: perhaps you could post some examples of
: "centralized programming" from this list of historical precedents
: which occured "quite often,"
:
: MAX, aka ALS.

This does not appear to be an organizational structure. It appears to be a
technology. It also appears to be a single example, which would make the
support of the statement "quite often" to be tenuous at best. Therefore, it
does not support your argument.

: >and discuss what key concepts they shared to make them
: >"centralized".
:
: I've already enumerated them.

Based on this ad nauseum response, you apparently concede that you cannot
dispute this point.

: >As I noted previously, one definition of "centralized" programming
: >is the business environment as described in Brooks (and other
: >respondents to this thread), with the key concepts of (a) the CPUs
: >are physically located close together, in a single room or suite and
: >(b) where the task of programming (coding) requires the programmers
: >to either enter the program at a single "master" console,
:
: What have you been smoking. That mode of operation died in the 50s, if
: not earlier. Certainly by 1960 programs were entered from cards, paper
: tape or magnetic tape, not from the console.

The assertion that programs were *never* entered from a console would
surprise IBM 360 series operators, to say the least. However, since your
statement is covered in the very next clause, it is also irrelevant.

: >or to submit the programming job to a centrally located operator
: >corps for entry.
:
: I'm not sure what you mean by "programming job". If you mean "batch
: job", there were plenty of "self serve" card readers at computer
: centers in the late sixties, to say nothing of the Bisync work
: stations you seem not to believe in.

I assume the term "plenty" here is used in the same content as "quite often"
above; i.e. there was at least one example. Again, the availability of
technology is not particularly related to how it is routinely used within a
business organization. Coupled with the ad hominem non-response, the lack of
anything more than sparse anecdotal evidence fails to adequately support
your point. (Contrast this with my use of contemporary authoritative
references in the previous post).

: >By contrast, "decentralized" programming has automation routinely
: >available at the programmer's work station (desk, etc.) without need
: >of an intermediary. (Brooks describes this as "interactive
: >programming,"
:
: ROTF,LMAO! You're conflating unrelated terms.

Based on the absence of an explanation as to why these are "unrelated"
terms, I assume you're merely inserting a red herring to compensate for a
lack of a rational rebuttal.

: >I suppose that you could establish "being correct" through some
: >means other than the logic steps taught in debate classes (faith,
: >etc.), but it would be hypocritical to use these methods and then
: >castigate others for "refraining from logic."
:
: So we agree that you're a hypocrite.

No. You may believe I'm a hypocrite for using formal debate logic; this of
course does not advance your position any more than the other logical
fallacies (ad hominem attacks, in particular) that comprise this post.

: >Actually, if you haven't read "Mythical Math-Month"
:
: I have.
:
: >(or have forgotten it),
:
: I haven't. Including the discrepancies that went over your head.

Based on this ad hominem attack, coupled with the inability to support your
position through anything other than repeated assertions (e.g. by providing
references to MMM that were "over my head"), I see that you have no further
value to add to your position. Feel free to post additional irrelevant
observations if you like; however, I believe your position has been shown to
be fatally flawed. I can't see any reason to discuss it further.