Posted by Steve on 09/17/07 17:41

"Shelly" <sheldonlg.news@asap-consult.com> wrote in message
news:13etcs11ug57rb6@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Steve" <no.one@example.com> wrote in message
> news:3rwHi.805$3C.788@newsfe05.lga...
>>> Moral: Programming, as well as life, is not always an either-or.
>>> Sometimes a compromise/hybrid is the best solution.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Shelly
>>
>> ahhh, but shelly, the thing i like most is that in programming, it is
>> always either/or: on/off. to say otherwise is to not know programming.
>> the same holds true for life. you either do or do not. any notions about
>> the nobility or superiority of human action in his contemplation of life
>> are simply false, save the fact that there is none of either. do or do
>> not is all that remains and that directly linked to his own
>> survivability - as is the impetous of all animals.
>>
>> compromise. chuckle.
>
> So, I take it that if you fed a meal which is a wonderfully prepared, 10
> pound, filet mignon you either (a) eat all of it or (b) eat none of it?

no, i'd eat enough so that i was sustained - not so much that i could not
defend myself if attacked, or so much that i could not drink, or so much
that i could not shelter myself. i would eat what was appropriate for my
survival. if it were rotted, yet wonderfully prepaired, i probably wouldn't
eat it because i would become ill.

all of which affects my survivability.

> or,
>
> If you are faced with a court appearance for excessive speeding in your
> car you should either be acquitted or should get the death sentence?

i should not speed if i don't like the consequences.

however, your example is completely non sequitur, as my appearance in court
is not tied to the judgement in the sentence. but in order to indulge, if
the court deems acquittal or death, it will do so based on the circumstances
and how my actions effected the survivability (well being) of the group
under which the judge(s) serve(s).


> On one project about 25 years ago I needed to modify a very large
> application that was written in Fortran. I needed dynamic allocation.
> According to you, I should have been faced with two choices. One was to
> emulate dynamic allocation by setting aside a large part of memory and
> doing my own allocation from that memory heap. A second would have been
> to totally rewrite that entire (largggggeeeee) application in C. I chose
> a "compromise". I wrote a small module in C and used that in conjunction
> with the rest of the Fortran code.

according to me? your options are your options. you made a choice. that
choice did not involve programming. it involved architecture. if you chose
to emulate dynamic allocation, you would have done so concretely and there
would be no compromise, no choice in how that code was interpreted by the
server. your instructions would have been "either or", not "when you feel
like it". even bugs or the omission of logic are concrete and predictable if
the inputs are known. 3/4 of the code i write (or don't write, specifically)
are from logical omissions; handling only what i must in order to get inputs
where they can either be thrown out or processed.

> The point here is that there are two extremes in handling his situation.
> Either avoid a database and just use the file system, or avoid the file
> system and put all of the contents of the file into a blob field in the
> database. Often, the better way is to use the database as a rapid search
> engine for a file in the file system.

choices, whether deemed extreme or simple, are still just options. when you
program, you do so concretely.

> I guess you aren't married? I have been for over four decades. Believe
> me, "all or nothing" just doesn't work. Even with a swich for the lights
> you can always add a dimmer.

my marital status has no bearing on my thought processes. if you've
"compromised" on who you are or in what you believe because you decided to
take a spouse, you ought to have demanded more from your spouse...and your
life.

again though, my choices (all of them) should be concrete regarless of how
many options there are. whether i account my spouse into the equation of
which i shall select, the one chosen will most definitely be from
selfishness born of survival - what is in my best interest. hell, "selfless"
acts are the most overtly selfish acts of all, endearing the actor to his
society and thus making his likelihood to survive all the more certain - and
if dead because of such an act, marked in that culture's history...extending
his 'life' much further than if he'd have led a 'normal' life.

> By the way, I have been programming four over forty years. We are not
> talking ones and zeros, true or false, here. We are talking design
> philosophy -- and that if usually a compromise among various alternatives
> to achieve the most efficient results in the shortest time for the least
> cost.

oh but we are talking about ones and zeros. that's programming. design is
about options, not the act of programming itself. but just like design and
life, there are always alternatives. whatever the context, seeing the
presence or blending of options as a compromise is a faulty
premise/perspective, one from which the best advantages thereof are often
overlooked.

my point: programming is vastly different than life. it is completely black
and white, sharing only with it an array of perspectives from which it will
be engaged...ultimately leaving a single mark in one of two states; a one or
a zero, do or do not.

[Back to original message]