Post #71,338
12/29/02 5:23:15 PM
|
I understand your position perfectly
You believe that all abstractions should be useless, and that nobody should be able to trust in anything without knowing the whole system perfectly.
There is a name for code produced by programmers who think like that. That name is spaghetti. And systems that are built like that inevitably become a [link|http://www.laputan.org/mud/mud.html|Big Ball of Mud].
Yes, I am part of a funky computer religion that implicitly assumes that you shouldn't have to understand the fundamentals of what you're doing - at least not all of the time. Abstractions like files and directories serve an important purpose, and the abstractions should not be broken lightly. And I am proud to say that that is a Good Thing.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #71,362
12/29/02 7:17:38 PM
|
Re: I understand your position perfectly
Ben wrote:
I understand your position perfectly. You believe that all abstractions should be useless, and that nobody should be able to trust in anything without knowing the whole system perfectly.
What an absolutely fabulous straw man you have there. May I take a whack at it, too, or do you have proprietary rights?
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #71,572
12/30/02 6:16:31 PM
|
If it is not a straw man...
Then please explain how your position differs appreciably from what I described.
Regards,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #71,811
12/31/02 10:14:16 PM
|
Re: If it is not a straw man...
Ben wrote:
If it is not a straw man, then please explain how your position differs appreciably from what I described.
If I could figure out how you derived the extremely strange view you described immediately before attributing it to me, and then went on to draw even more peculiar conclusions from it, I'd gladly tell you which wrong turn you took on that road. But it's way too damn bizarre for my tastes, and it should suffice to say "No, I most certainly don't believe that, nor does anyone, actually."
I'm willing to believe that you honestly thought that. I guess. But I'm not going to try to prove to you that I don't hold a rather odd and silly view that strike me as nothing at all like what I said.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #71,962
1/2/03 4:55:17 AM
|
Funny, I concluded the same as Ben
YTF should I have to understand how the file system works to use it?
Do I also need to know the voltages in my ram chips to make proper use of memory in my software?
And of course, I mustn't write anything using sockets unless I clearly understand the inner workings of the entire communications stack and what is actually happening on the wires.
Better not drive a car without being able to calculate the thermal energy per unit of fuel - otherwise you'll probably run out someplace. You certainly can't trust that little needle - especially if you don't know how it works.
At some point, you have to use *abstractions* in order to move forwards or you will never transcend your current level of minutiae.
Your assertion that you must know the inner workings of the file system in order to use it is stupid.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #71,970
1/2/03 5:31:20 AM
|
Re: Funny, I concluded the same as Ben
ToddBlanchard wrote:
YTF should I have to understand how the file system works to use it?
Well, you needn't, of course. Just concentrate on watching the pretty pictures. Don't worry; be happy. Other people will take care of the technical stuff, and you can just wait for it to be delivered in idiotproofed form.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
Post #72,164
1/3/03 4:27:19 AM
|
Little story - you might find it entertaining
I've been an avid skydiver since 1983. I've got over 24 hours of free fall time and over 1000 jumps (which means I've fallen something like 1500 miles).
When I started in the sport, before standardization of equipment, the number one cause of deaths wasn't "failed parachutes" (which was maybe 5% of problems - and today its less than a whole percent). It was "borrowed gear".
Every month I would eagerly rip open my new issue of Parachutist to read the accident reports - because its valuable (and safer) to learn from other people's mistakes.
In the early 80's skydiving was going through a transition period from outlaw practice to viable busineess. While lots of military surplus gear was still common, the first gear created strictly for pleasure jumping was beginning to appear on the market from a half dozen different companies.
The result was stuff shipped with a wide variety of "user interfaces" (handle placements). Some put the main deployment handle on a band crossing the belly. Other s on the left hip, or the right hip. The bottom of the pack was a common place while older gear had the main rip cord on the chest. Reserve ripcords were typically on the chest next to the cutaway handle for separating from the main parachute (if its trash you want it gone before opening old faithful) but left and right placement varied. Handle appearance varied as well. So you couldn't just grab a rig and know whats what. You had to ask the owner. I mean, if you don't know what it is, maybe you shouldn't jump it.
But people sometimes borrow gear because their stuff isn't packed when the plane is ready to go. So very knowledgeable skydivers would borrow something, get a quick explanation for what was where, (there's only 3 handles on a parachute, main, reserve, cutaway), and go make a jump.
And then they'd hit the ground pulling on the wrong thing. Lots of them. Gurus. Guys who had jumped everything under the sun and were as comfortable freefalling as lying in a hammock would bounce. The investigation would typically find that the guy was jumping something he had borrowed on the spur of the moment.
This cycle is repeating among the BASE jumping community as BASE gear evolves. You may remember the news story from a couple years ago of Jan Davis - one of the best and brightest - very publicly bouncing during a protest jump at Yosemite in 1999. The park officials were going to arrest the participants and confiscate their gear - so she borrowed something less nice than her regular rig. The unfamiliarity killed her (it wasn't lack of knowledge - she knew how it worked - she had hundreds of jumps on it).
The moral of this story is that variety kills. Today every single rig on the market has the handles laid out in exactly the same way and we don't have those kinds of accidents anymore. So for the same reason, I think its dangerous to mix file system types on a computer. At least until the tools evolve to properly handle the issues.
If the handles on the different file systems are different, accidents will happen.
Better knowledge is not the answer. Standardizing the interfaces is. All tools must become multi-file sytem aware or as Arkadiy says - we might as well keep sector maps on a pad of paper by our desk.
Of course, you seem to think you're bulletproof and your "knowledge" will protect you. It won't. You'll forget what file system you're on one day and slip. Like all those former skygods I used to know.
The dead ones.
I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
|
Post #72,212
1/3/03 10:21:21 AM
|
Excellent story. Going on the wall.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #72,237
1/3/03 11:59:25 AM
|
This my dear friend... (new thread)
Created as new thread #72236 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=72236|This my dear friend...]
[link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!]
[link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | The Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
[link|http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56742,00.html| Wi-Fi Terrorism] comes with an all inclusive
free trip to the local Hoosegow! | Please visit [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/board/show?boardid=1|iwethey.anti.anti++], providing
*THE* alternative to iwethey.anti-- since
June 18, 2001 22:00EST | | I'll never tell, my *overly-red* lips are sealed! *wink* *wink* |
|
Post #72,456
1/4/03 12:43:54 PM
|
Since you seem to be missing the point...
Here it is again.
Your attitude is that people should not use tools unless they know everything relevant to its proper usage. Your definition of what is relevant seems to be that if it might come up, then they need to know it. This is a circular definition of relevancy that justifies any particular dependency in hindsight as the user's fault for not knowing better.
Now I know that [link|http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html|abstractions leak]. (That is one of the few articles by Joel that I agree with incidentally.) Furthermore I often find myself being in the position of being the person around who understands what abstractions leak, and why. There is no fundamental solution to that problem. Shit happens, and plumbers are needed for it.
However one mark of a programmer that you want to have around is the ability to see shit and recognize it for what it is. Leaking abstractions are signs of shit. While they may be inevitable, they are not something that you want to take lightly. Because a system built by people with too much tolerance for that inevitably degrades into a complete mess.
In this case the leaking abstraction is one of the worst kinds to have. Different filesystems use the same words for subtly different abstractions. This makes it hard for most people to even verbalize that there is a difference, let alone what it is. (When the same thing happens in speech you get classic threads where people talk past each other at length.) And when you try to combine them into one abstraction, the gaps keep on leaking past.
So yes, it happens for good reason. But it is a basic design flaw in the system. And it is not one to belittle people for getting tripped up by, nor is it one that has a simple right answer.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #74,798
1/16/03 4:13:56 AM
|
Re: Since you seem to be missing the point...
Ben Tilly wrote:
Your attitude is that people should not use tools unless they know everything relevant to its proper usage.
Not quite. Rather: I mildly (and not at all insistently, given that it's really not my problem) suggest that people should take responsibility for what they do. If you choose to use tools without adequately understanding them, you can pound your thumb with a misaimed hammer. The choice of taking that risk may be reasonable; the point is to not expect pity when you screw up and hurt yourself.
Personally, I prefer education over "learning experiences". Less painful.
Remainder of your post duly ignored as furious and tedious pummeling of an irrelevant straw man. Therapeutic though, I'm sure.
Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com
If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
|
