Conversation

Notices

1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:30:13 EST clacke
   > So if the proposed client/server protocol says the client should send a request twice and discards the first result (a Level 3/design-level statement), and the designer tells you it’s because there are three different kinds of request handlers in the codebase, and Bob’s sometimes gets it wrong the first time (a Level 2/implementation-level statement), you should get confused. You should be as confused as if someone wanted to call a file or write to a function.
   
   #OStatus in practice
   
   Is #ActivityPub already there too?
   1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:31:57 EST clacke

      in reply to
      Related: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-postel-was-wrong-02
      1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:33:50 EST clacke

         in reply to
         @lobsters https://lobste.rs/s/4dmfsg/three_levels_software_why_code_never_goes
         1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:40:09 EST clacke

            in reply to
            Oh man that's a brainful. Will read comments at some other time.
            1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:42:20 EST clacke

               in reply to
               Apparently https://www.cs.utexas.edu/%7Ewcook/Drafts/2009/essay.pdf is supposed to be a good text discussing what an object is and what object orientation means.
               1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:52:49 EST clacke

                  in reply to
                  Postel's Law doesn't provide you with a clear culprit to be angry at:
                  
                  > A plan for getting from A to B followed by (or composed with) a plan for getting from B to C is a plan for getting from A to C. Well a correct plan for getting from A to B when composed with a correct plan for getting from B to C, if each of the plans “is mostly right if the piece after is so nice to fix up a few mistakes” you really don’t know what you have. You may have nothing.
                  
                  > Correct code remains correct under various compositions and transformations (that may happen in the future). Code that is working only due to pity often does not have this property.
                  
                  http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2010/02/postels-law-not-sure-who-to-be-angry-with/
                  1. clacke (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2018 01:55:50 EST clacke

                     in reply to
                     Restoring Postel's honor:
                     
                     > Jon's principle could perhaps be more accurately stated as "in general, only a subset of a protocol is actually used in real life. So, you should be conservative and only generate that subset. However, you should also be liberal and accept everything that the protocol permits, even if it appears that nobody will ever use it."
                     
                     http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000551.html