Re: Magic, Oracles, tomatos, and meaning questions not to ask

[Tim Nelson <architect @ webalive . biz>]

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Daniel Hagerty wrote:

> >  	Just so we're talking about the same thing, I think Daniel is
> > saying:
> > Magic: Unwritten functionality
>
>    Well, I was actually thinking about my usage of this term recently
> due to another context.  Usually, I seem to mean something where
> somebody had to stare at the system the right way and have the right
> knowledge in hand to say "tweak here, here, and here, and it will
> behave better".  The thing I was thinking of was TCP congestion

 	So magic is saying:
-	The map is not the territory
-	Here, use my map and see if that helps

 	?

> > Oracle: Authoritative source
>
>    Eh, don't know that I like this one.  The overall structural
> description of a few days works better for me, but doesn't have a two
> word label other than "oracle function", and we don't like that.
>
>    More expansively, "the oracle" is really a small semantic
> processing tool coupled with semantics for many, many systems small
> and large (these semantics being written by us).  The tool enables

 	So the oracle includes the items below:
-	Language X (for want of a better term) which is standard, and
 	specifies the config you want
-	The implementation of Language X which takes language X and makes
 	it happen on hardware a, b, and c
-	Our own configuration in language X

 	Yes?

[snipped examples; I like examples :) ]
>    In programming language semantics, the domain and range often
> relate to the state of a very abstract machine -- this sort of thing
> produces the ability to reason with the meaning of side effects, for
> example.  Our worlds are larger.

 	By which you mean that networks don't fit the abstract machine 
model?

> >  	The thing that makes it hard to get at what he's saying is that
> > he's mixing the language of mathematics and mysticism :).  I don't always
> > understand him either (due to lack of time :) ) but the bits I understand
> > seem right.
>
>    You say mathematics, I say tomato.  You say mysticism, I say
> tomato.  :)
>
>    I can't speak for your lack of time, but I can speak for my poor
> use of the nominal language of discourse.  I shall continue towards
> that nebulous halfway point.

 	You could instead speak for the fact that some of your content is 
actual hard content :).  If I don't make the time to grapple with it, 
that's not your problem :).  But I do when I can.

>    I will mostly try to avoid the issues that reek of myticsm to you.

 	I'm not complaining about the mysticism (I have more trouble with 
the maths :) ).  After all, I am:
-	A perl programmer (Magic variables, DWIMmery)
-	A Christian (see theology/mysticism link in your e-mail)
-	A role-playing game player (well, not for years, but I *was*)

 	So magic is fine by me, as long as it's *well-defined* magic :).

[snipped lovely example which I think I managed to understand :) ]
>    I will assert that infinity is a good tool for abusing your
> models.

 	s/abusing/stress-testing/ as well :).

-- 
Tim Nelson
Server Administrator
WebAlive Technologies Global
Level 1 Innovation Building, Digital Harbour
1010 LaTrobe Street
Docklands, Melbourne, 
Vic, 3008
Phone: +61 3 9934 0812
Fax: +61 3 9934 0899
E-mail: tim.nelson@webalive.biz
http://www.webalive.biz/

"Your Business, Your Web, Your Control"