On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Luben Tuikov wrote:
>
> > It's like real science: if you have a theory that doesn't match
> > experiments, it doesn't matter _how_ much you like that theory. It's
> > wrong. You can use it as an approximation, but you MUST keep in mind
> > that it's an approximation.
>
> But this is _the_ definition of a theory. No one is arguing that
> a theory is not an approximation to observed behaviour.
No.
A scientific theory is an approximation of observed behaviour WITH NO
KNOWN HOLES.
Once there are known holes in the theory, it's not a scientific theory. At
best it's an approximation, but quite possibly it's just plain wrong.
And that's my point. Specs are not only almost invariably badly written,
they also never actually match reality.
At which point at _best_ it's just an approximation. At worst, it's much
worse. At worst, it causes people to ignore reality, and then it becomes
religion.
And that's way _way_ too common. People who ignore reality are sadly not
at all unusual.
"But the spec says ..." is pretty much always a sign of somebody who has
just blocked out the fact that some device doesn't.
So don't talk about specs.
Talk about working code that is _readable_ and _works_.
There's an absolutely mindbogglingly huge difference between the two.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |