Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!bzs
From: bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Processing (terminology and limits really)
Message-ID: <6942@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Fri, 24-Apr-87 18:25:20 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.6942
Posted: Fri Apr 24 18:25:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Apr-87 23:36:53 EST
References: <505@sw1e.UUCP> <110@hippo.UUCP> <6123@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <6872@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <303@pembina.UUCP>
Organization: Boston U. Comp. Sci.
Lines: 36
In-reply-to: bjorn@alberta.UUCP's message of 24 Apr 87 03:11:03 GMT

Posting-Front-End: GNU Emacs 18.41.4 of Mon Mar 23 1987 on bu-cs (berkeley-unix)



>In article <6872@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>>>Undoubtedly you have heard the axiom
>>>"Any program will expand to fill all available space."
>> 
>>Yes, but that is not an axiom, it is a shibboleth. An axiom is
>>something you can prove.
>
>Please, please!?!  We've seen enough perversion of perfectly
>reasonable CS concepts by the PC people in years gone by (not
>to mention re-inventing each and every shape of wheel in
>existence), let's not start on mathematics (or general use
>English for that matter) already.

OK, ok, I screwed that up. An axiom is something you take as true,
a given, tautological or otherwise self-evident.

Does this mean everyone complaining about that agrees that "any
program will expand to fill all available space" is an axiom? Or is it
a shibboleth as I claimed?

Or is everyone just jerking off in public?

Maybe conversations on these lists would be more productive if people
would try to address the issues with substantive debate instead of
trying to point out minor slip-ups of no real consequence to the
overall argument.

I think my point was clear enough, that statement is not an axiom in
any sense of the word (my misuse or your correction), it's a homily, a
shibboleth, actually a humorous joke called "Parkinson's Law" that's
analogous to Murphy's Law and many other amusing self-flagellations
that engineers use to try to laugh at their errors. It has no place in
a serious argument, it sheds no light on anything.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University