News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Dijkstra on the cruelty of really teaching computing science (1988). Parent comment

Re:Dijkstra on the cruelty of really teaching computing scie... by kiujygtyujik on Monday September 06, 2010 @12:49PM (#1666973)
Thats the difference between maths and engineering.

A proof that has a single exception is wrong, a brige that stays up with a broken rivet is correct

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dijkstra on the cruelty of really teaching computing scie... by sqrt17 on Monday September 06, 2010 @03:09PM (#1667216)
A bridge that depends on all rivets being perfect is a bad thing. A proof that no longer holds outside of its domain of application is still useful.

The trick is to recognize when you need one and when you'd rather use the other.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dijkstra on the cruelty of really teaching computing scie... by kiujygtyujik on Monday September 06, 2010 @04:53PM (#1667404)
Same in software - an application that fills a business purpose but has bugs or "errors" is correct.

An error free perfect piece of software hat doesn't is useless

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Dijkstra on the cruelty of really teaching computing scie... by Twisol on Monday September 06, 2010 @10:50PM (#1667878)
> A proof that has a single exception is wrong, a brige that stays up with a broken rivet is correct

I really like how the mathematical part of that phrase is literal, and the programming part is metaphorical.

[ Parent | on HN ]