"Enumerative reasoning is only an adequate mental tool under the severe
boundary condition that we only use it very moderately. We should appreciate
abstraction as our main mental technique to reduce the demands made upon
enumerative reasoning."   ~ EW Dijkstra

This is critically decisive because Dijkstra is saying that in most
*software engineering" contexts, most of the time, abstraction is key
relative to "metrics", the numerical, the quantitative.

It is a TOWWWEEERRRING, grand slam "home run".  It is of Doug William's 3-4
perfectly pitched Super Bowl touchdowns.

It is growth in insight after Dijkstra one of THE very best ran into major
impasses attempting to drive development with metrics.  His insight is that
ABSTRACTION should "lead" the way.

While there is the dialectic:  metrics<=>abstraction

The predominant factor to engage and lead software engineering by is
"abstraction".  So notation wise better:  metrics<=>abstraction*

And to denote analyzing or summarizing the dialectic applied in whatever
context, from point 'a' to 'b':  a,b{ metrics<=>abstraction*

Discrete points:  a,b; l,q{ metrics<=>abstraction*

Have at your own meaningful fun!

Elliott
--
Global Plans + IID = part of an optimal approach

On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 23:36:17 -0500, "Universe"
<universe@tAkEcovadOuT.net> wrote:
>"Enumerative reasoning is only an adequate mental tool under the severe
>boundary condition that we only use it very moderately. We should appreciate
>abstraction as our main mental technique to reduce the demands made upon
>enumerative reasoning."   ~ EW Dijkstra

What does this mean, that we should not use enum declarations?

I presume he wrote this cited text before the enum became a popular
programming language construct.

I know, that's not what he meant, or at least it's not what you mean,
and yet it is an indication that what he, and you, mean, is not
entirely correct.

>This is critically decisive because Dijkstra is saying that in most
>*software engineering" contexts, most of the time, abstraction is key
>relative to "metrics", the numerical, the quantitative.

Well certainly you had better allow the quantitative to be preserved,
or you're going to have disasters left and right, and no way to
safety-catch them with assertions.

>It is a TOWWWEEERRRING, grand slam "home run".  It is of Doug William's 3-4
>perfectly pitched Super Bowl touchdowns.
>
>It is growth in insight after Dijkstra one of THE very best ran into major
>impasses attempting to drive development with metrics.  His insight is that
>ABSTRACTION should "lead" the way.

What specifically are you talking about here?  Seems to me this
statement is too "abstract" to parse.

>While there is the dialectic:  metrics<=>abstraction

Do the rules allow you to set up a dialectic between any two points?  

red<=>wet
male<=>beautiful
new<=>high
....

Cuz if you're talking about any kind of objectivity, I don't think
metrics/abstractions is valid.  Particular/universal or
specific/general.  Enumerated/Rule-based, perhaps, but even that is
misleading.  It is one of the unique virtues of computation that we
can see that you can have rule-based systems for enumerated values.
In fact, no matter what rules you create and apply in a digital
system, it only is going to look at a finite range of digitally
specified values (even if the domains are infinite, or at least
combinatorily intractable).

Programs are still particular, both in the particularism of the code
and in the particularism of their operation, no matter how much you
want them to realize your idealism.

J.

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message
>
> >It is growth in insight after Dijkstra one of THE very best ran into
major
> >impasses attempting to drive development with metrics.  His insight is
that
> >ABSTRACTION should "lead" the way.

> What specifically are you talking about here?  Seems to me this
> statement is too "abstract" to parse.

Wow.  For the relationship between: metrics<=>abstraction
most grade schoolers it *perfectly*.

> >While there is the dialectic:  metrics<=>abstraction

> Do the rules allow you to set up a dialectic between any two points?
>
> red<=>wet
> male<=>beautiful
> new<=>high
> ...

You either 1) ain't tryin', or 2) you lyin' and dyin'.

I'll relent this once, and assume despite appearances, that you have at
least a fraction if intellectual honesty and integrity.

Thus I'll suggest that you read 1 of 3-4 recent comp.objects threads clearly
(given an academic HS track, or year of college level Liberal Arts)
explaining what the term "dialectics" means.

For Instance: "Study of 3 Key Areas of XP/Alliance Falsity".

Elliott
--
XP Craftistry is mostly wrong as are the perceptions of most its
adherents.

Just a fact.  In life there is truth<=>falsehood.  And XP is *generally* on
the right (wrong) side of that dialectic in most cases.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 18:22:00 -0500, "Universe"
<universe@tAkEcovadOuT.net> wrote:
>You either 1) ain't tryin', or 2) you lyin' and dyin'.

You really want to discuss who is the most trying here?

>I'll relent this once, and assume despite appearances, that you have at
>least a fraction if intellectual honesty and integrity.
>
>Thus I'll suggest that you read 1 of 3-4 recent comp.objects threads clearly
>(given an academic HS track, or year of college level Liberal Arts)
>explaining what the term "dialectics" means.
>
>For Instance: "Study of 3 Key Areas of XP/Alliance Falsity".

Please check your diary for my previous posts on that thread regarding
the silliness of dialectic as a basis for anything ... well, it makes
a nice poetry, for those so inclined.  

J.

"JXStern" <JXSternChangeX2R@gte.net> wrote in message

> <universe@tAkEcovadOuT.net> wrote:
> >You either 1) ain't tryin', or 2) you lyin' and dyin'.

> You really want to discuss who is the most trying here?

> >I'll relent this once, and assume despite appearances, that you have at
> >least a fraction if intellectual honesty and integrity.
> >
> >Thus I'll suggest that you read 1 of 3-4 recent comp.objects threads
> >clearly (given an academic HS track, or year of college level Liberal
Arts)
> >explaining what the term "dialectics" means.
> >
> >For Instance: "Study of 3 Key Areas of XP/Alliance Falsity".

> Please check your diary for my previous posts on that thread regarding
> the silliness of dialectic as a basis for anything ... well, it makes
> a nice poetry, for those so inclined.
>
> J.