= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Eugine_Nier comments on Diseased disciplines: the strange case of the inverted chart - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (150)
Is it really valid to conclude that software engineering is diseased based on one propagating mistake? Could you provide other examples of flawed scholarship in the field? (I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think your argument is particularly convincing.)
Can you comment on Making Software by Andy Oram and Greg Wilson (Eds.)? What do you think of Jorge Aranda and Greg Wilson's blog, It Will Never Work in Theory?
To anyone interested in the subject, I recommend Greg Wilson's talk on the subject, which you can view here.
How about based on the fact that the discipline relies on propagating result rather than reproducing them.
If there is something that your data confirms, you want to reference somebody as a source to be seen fighting this problem.