Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ames!eos!eugene From: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: prototyping Message-ID: <5333@eos.UUCP> Date: 4 Oct 89 23:39:29 GMT References: <1142@svx.SV.DG.COM> <34399@regenmeister.uucp> <5296@eos.UUCP> <568@pd1.ccd.harris.com> Reply-To: eugene@eos.UUCP (Eugene Miya) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif. Lines: 24 Distribution: YES knowing when to throw prototypes away is important. That is a problem we have. We don't prototype in this environment: it's seen as expensive, a waste of resources, an unnecessary duplication, an so forth. Programming languages tend to be too low-level. The problem is to package and building things at a higher level. Standard libraries aren't enough. The concept of complete "environments" hasn't been enough. OOP isn't enough. No silver bullets. There is a poorly definited concept of software evolution. The problem is the definition of biological evolution is coming under fire: criticisms of gradualism, etc. We have trouble distinguishing development from evolution. Perhaps we must begin to consider the conditions under which we must throw things away. We don't throw Euclid's algorithm out the window. Can we throw a payroll program out? We do if it does run on the new updated piece of hardware we might buy. Another gross generalization from --eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@aurora.arc.nasa.gov resident cynic at the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" "If my mail does not reach you, please accept my apology." {ncar,decwrl,hplabs,uunet}!ames!eugene Live free or die.