292600+ entries in 0.177s
mircea_popescu: honestly it doesn't seem anyone has a better idea of what a spec is
than "correct metaphora", which is ridiculous, ironic, scandalous and not much
to go on simultaneously.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform anyway, your definition of a spec is amply vulnerable.
take
the
time issue : what, ddr can't be specified ? fingering a girl neither ? what happens if
the spec asks for a 10 followed by a 11, and ytou get
the 10 and silence ? now you got a whole halting problem on your hands.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 13:18 mircea_popescu:
there's some problems with
the concept of "specification" also
that i don't have clear in my mind
mircea_popescu: but hey, you
test it. "as best you can".
then nobody believes
the results
mircea_popescu: o god almighty he was playing it straight. listen asciilifeform you'll say
the exact same
thing about your bovaric contraption down
the road. "the program is fine
the world failed it". need i quote brecht
to you ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform well, for any possible output, it'll get either accepted or rejected. doesn't get clearer
than
this.
mircea_popescu: experimential specification, "send a
txn see if it makes it
through".
mircea_popescu: but
the network already and very clearly specifies inputs nad outputs.
this meets your definition.
mircea_popescu: so you've just said "the bitcoin newtork is
the bitcoin specification" here.
mircea_popescu: then variant and unequivalent implementations of
the same spec may exist ?
mircea_popescu: "don't steal" can not be a spec, only "if you steal you go
to jail" ?
mircea_popescu: no generally.
the definitive, absolute and no sharp edges or loose parts version,
that can be engraved into
the ether and forever work without change.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform let's go into a lengthy sidepoint. can you define "specification" for my benefit ? strangely enough
the prb
tards
think some
things about what a specification is
that diverge.
mircea_popescu: speaking of which, i must say
this has been by far
the most serious, deep and far reaching argument
tmsr yet produced, i sit and marvel at
the wonder, all my resources
tapped
taut and for
the first
time in many years insufficient
to peer
through
the gloom.
mircea_popescu: there's some problems with
the concept of "specification" also
that i don't have clear in my mind
☟︎ mircea_popescu: i posit
that no matter how good a job you do of it, and i believe you capable of an exceptionally good job, will never be perfect, because it can't be for fundamental reasons.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 13:12 mircea_popescu: how do you put in "all
the parts
that are needed by ALL future users" but "no parts not needed by ANY future user" ?
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i suspect
this may be a case where your conscientious intelligence is moreover harmful in
the very limited and passagery sense
that it
took you far enough down a blind alley
to make digging out
the proper route seem expensive and painful.
mircea_popescu: i do not wish my os
to contain as much as a fucking variable declared i don't use. not one.
mircea_popescu: how do you put in "all
the parts
that are needed by ALL future users" but "no parts not needed by ANY future user" ?
☟︎ mircea_popescu: true static library is really
the complete story : ascii's ffz +
the various re-implementations of ffz in projects x y and z.
mircea_popescu: "open source" alleviates
this like an emergency valve does ; but why
the fuck have design processes which create items which rely on emergency valve already. fix
the leaks.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform
the fundamental problem with
the "library"
thing is
that you are asked
to guess what i might wish
to do in
the future.
this is wrong, and unfixable.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i wouldn't use it in my creations without reading it. i may run it on a box on
the basis of wot
though.
mircea_popescu: my shamelessly
tall statement here being
that, "library is
the bad
thing", outright.
mircea_popescu: the deep stupidity involved should be directly apparent, but in any case -
the system as proposed violates
the proper flow of entropy, and as such MAY NOT HAVE ANY MERITS.
mircea_popescu: this idiocy is not only how computing "works"
today, but it is also how a good "marxist leninist maoist" party cadre is expected
to
treat
the inept shit
they use : he's
to import marx.library exactly like you're "expected"
to import iosys.blabla
mircea_popescu: meanwhile,
the way
this continuum is handled in all failed human endeavours (computing among
them, with such prideful items as "social science" and so on) is for "all possible uses" of a concept
to be "dreamed up" and "packaged" in a "conceptual library" which is
then
to be used verbatim.
mircea_popescu: there obviously exists a continuum between abstraction and implementation.
the way
this continuum is handled in ~all (and absolutely all) successful human endeavours is,
that a concept is clarified AS A CONCEPT ; and
then
that concept is applied
to situations as an application. like
the war, roman arch, et all.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 05:31 phf: well, mp already pointed at
this with his roman arch example
a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 05:22
trinque: using openssl as a symbol,
to
the degree
that your program relies on one, you cannot be said
to have written any particular program at all
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-14#1482510 << whether you can be said
to have "written" it, in
the manner of genre fiction, is even a separate matter from "having written it" in
the manner of code, which means you control it, which is a superset of you understand it completely, which has really little
to do with "here's a string i dreamed up now publish it and clal it a book".
☝︎ a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 05:18 phf: but i haven't seen
those problems yet in
the bitcoin codebase,
the problem
that i did see is a certain deliberate apartness of
tinyscheme related code,
that subtly violate my assumptions in a nagging way
that i described above.
mircea_popescu: hence
the whole "because i can". it's a misnomer : "because it can be done" is proper,
the i has no business in
there. it'd like
to, but
that's neither here nor
there.
a111: Logged on 2016-06-14 04:55
trinque: every pit of ignorance on earth sits behind some
tidy word beyond which "it's someone else's problem"
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-14#1482493 << word. really, "labour division" is harmful in
the same manner jwzism is harmful, if practiced in
the manner jwzism is practiced.
the criteria for cleavage MUST BE "can
these
things be cleaved" ; it CAN NOT BE "would i like
these
things apart". it is and has
to remain about
the
things, not about
the people. and in
this sense "engineering serves mankind" in
the same way "the sun is u
☝︎ trinque: thus fuck your hyperlinks; give me
the whole
thing in one buffer
trinque: someone
thinking of a specific problem rather
than *the whole problem* sees it from
the perspective of maximizing clarity of his own particular domain
trinque: asciilifeform
thinking of it from
the perspective of "mind amplifier" says in order
to represent as much
thought as possible, gonna need hyperlinking
trinque: it's whether software is a matter of engineering or of
thought.
trinque: fascinating; I have a condensation of
the whole conversation now
trinque: with
the risk
that something about bridge failure may end up causing your building
to collapse
trinque: the physical world does not have
this confounding problem