Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!hpltoad!cdollin!kers From: kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Modifiability Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 91 12:49:39 GMT References: <2192@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> <1991Jun07.020546.29682@xstor.com> <1991Jun7.073448.11818@netcom.COM> Sender: news@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Usenet News Administrator) Distribution: comp.software-eng Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK. Lines: 28 In-Reply-To: jls@netcom.COM's message of 7 Jun 91 07:34:48 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: cdollin.hpl.hp.com Jim Showalter says (in response to a posting): Einstein was fond of saying that if you can't explain to an 8 year old what you are doing, you obviously don't know. Using this metric, I've seen precious few design documents written by people who know what they're building. Casting aside the appeal to authority, how reasonable is this test (``metric'' seems a little to overstate the case, since the only number involved is the age ``8''. Hm, another software metric - an average of the developers ages?)? Could you explain to an 8-year-old: * that you're computing a transitive closure * that you're generating code to parse tokens froma context-free grammar * that you're proving that launching requires authorisation * that you drink beer because you *like* the taste * that sex is nicer than chocolate [points for identifying source] * that people have to lose their jobs to support the economy ``explain'', ``what you're doing'', and how you measure the success of the explanation are all left loose here. I'd give the criterion a polite ``no'', but admit that there's something to be learned from it. -- Regards, Kers. "If anything anyone licks, they'll find it all ready in sticks."