[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
> pop3 scripsit:
>
> > Nor can I support folks in a CMM or ISO9000 shop
> > utilizing XML to any significant degree until they can show that XML is
a
> > proven best practice, by rigorous scientific proofs.
>
> What programming language can you justify by "rigorous scientific
> [meaning mathematical?] proofs"? Scheme and Prolog, maybe.
Well, exactly. There is no such thing as a "rigorous scientific proof".
Asking for one just reveals a misunderstanding of science. You can have a
rigorous mathematical proof, or a scientific theory that agrees with
empirical observation and is consistent with other theories, but you cannot
mix the two and somehow arrive at a proof of a theory.
Bob Foster
|
