[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes. Now we are getting into an interesting area
of networks: free traders and structuralists.
Walter Perry's POV is the perfect free trader POV.
Schemas like GJXDM represent the structuralist POV.
Structuralists want control. Free traders want
opportunity.
Free traders pass messages. Structuralists share types.
Emergence experts stand between them beating a drum
at some varying rate which synchonize these two
extremes. The difference between real time or
simple time and enterprise time or complex time
is the force applied to the signal that causes
it to beat rhythmically. It is rhythmic beat
that makes a system predictable above the random
value such that Markov analysis becomes useful
and positive feedback is achieved for all agents
in the system. No one dances to noise for very
long.
Beat disrupts time because mass disrupts space.
Disruption is the force of a self-annealing system.
If chaos is the rule and simulation is the tool,
one doesn't try to build a system that has zero defects.
One builds a system that is robust enough to handle
the knowns, learns from the unknowns, and recovers
from the unknown-unknowns. Redundancy is what we
use to handle known unknowns. Post-disaster analysis
is what we use for unk-unks. Documentation is
everything. Thus SGML and now XML.
Look for sources of compatible **Data**. Incompatible
data can't dance.
len
From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@zenucom.com]
i really have to agree with len here. my experience in building a
complete rdbms followed the sorts of things we have here: get ideas into
place and working, code good, but sloppy in type checking in particular.
lint was a pain in the neck in those days. then came standard c and an
improved set of compilers that did static type checking properly. the
next exercise - which took months - was to carefully investigate and
repair all the static typing errors. there's probably more because to
this day i haven't got all the function calls properly documented. the
code reliability however improved dramatically! and while mixing up
integers can be a problem, if you use strong typecasting for things (ie
not just pointers, but typecast pointers; not just integers, but
typecast integers) even those problems can be eliminated.
as indicated on this list dynamic or static type casting is fundamental
to reliable software. the more the better in my view.
and one final note on static/dynamic. the former i find most useful for
static things like compiled programs while the latter i find better for
dynamic things like data being passed between applications.
|
