[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] rant on pseudoscience

To: edbark@xxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: David Eddy <deddy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:52:11 -0500
Message-id: <C35BFFB8-2F30-456A-9C61-96AD458FA129@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Ed -    (01)

On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Ed Barkmeyer wrote:    (02)

> [EB] good science owes much to the peer review process.    (03)

(At the risk of perhaps repeating myself...)    (04)

Twenty years ago I was poking around the (MIT) Sloan School's library  
for materials relevant to information management issues.    (05)

To my delight & astonishment I found a research paper on "software  
maintenance."    (06)

Unfortunately when I got the paper the full abstract said that while  
the original intent was to discuss software maintenance issues, when  
they examined the academically acceptable refereed literature, there  
were in fact so few articles on the topic that the paper was actually  
going to examine how object oriented programming would significantly  
reduce/eliminate the need for software maintenance.    (07)

To me this smacks of: "Because my eyes can only see visible light,  
this is proof that radio waves do not exist.  QED"    (08)

Let me see... object oriented programming (or modular programming if  
you're from the other side of the pond) is 50+ years old.  Therefore  
we clearly have no software maintenance challenges now?    (09)

Did I miss something?    (010)

- David    (011)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (012)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>