Google| Subject | Re: Paintshop and Corel |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2013-11-28 10:24 (2013-11-28 10:24) |
| Message-ID | <slrnl9e311.6mk.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (13h & 30m) > Sandman |
In article <4e1e99t4vlsvgmdl2u8smdb7gpgo73drhe@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
Not in terms of describing a software product, no.Eric StevensEric StevensSandman
You should think in terms of a black box.
Why?
Have you never encountered that concept?
The point about a black box is that you do not need to know anything about it's internal workings.As I said - it's the other way around. You describe it as a black box becuase you DON'T know anything about its internal workings.
It has an input and an output and some kind of transfer function which relates the output to the input. That's all you need to know about it."It has an input and output" is one of the most simplistic way to describe software I've ever seen. And I'm quite sure you're not sure what "transfer function" you might be in reference to here.
That symbolizes what, exactly, in your mind?Eric StevensThe protocol is an external set of requirements which determines what the black box is to do.Sandman
What "black box"?
The one you should be thinking in terms of.
As I said, it's the type of analysis a laymen would do about something he or she knows nothing about. It's the equivalent of "I press a button, "stuff" happens and then out comes a printed copy of my homework, yay!"Eric StevensThe program governs what goes on inside the black box which enables it to meet the externally imposed requirements of the protocol.Sandman
This looks like yet another laymen's method to put words to what he doesn't understand.
It's a standard method of analysis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box
And yes, that's exactly what the wikipedia link says. So yeah, you linked to a page that supported my claim. Thanks, I suppose.
They could, but they're not required to. It seems that you can add yourself to the list of people needing to look up the meaning of the word "protocol". It seems both you and Tony use it where you just don't know what is happening. "Yeah, so the application does stuff... so yeah, that's following a protocol, right?"SandmanEric Stevens
I *am* a programmer, so I know very well how programs work internally, and they're not "black boxes" and they're not "protocols".
You are right. Programs are not protocols. Programs function to satisfy the requirements of protocols.
That's a very ironic claim, Eric.Eric StevensThe black box does not have to be a single box: it can include an operator. It can even be a building crammed with staff and computers. For the purpose of the discussion it defines a boundary around whatever it is that is intended to satisfy the requirements of the protocol.Sandman
This doesn't make much sense on its own, and even less sense in conjunction with the topic under discussion.
That's because you haven't yet grasped the concept.
The topic is backup software, and Tony's insistance of forcing the word "protocol" in different ways in relation to it, ever changing the meaning and definition of the word and how the user and the developer in relation to it.
I have no problem using the word "protocol" in relation to a backup process, but Tony was very condescending towards nospam who hadn't heard it used that way, so I poked him to see if he could explain further. He couldn't and is now stuck in a death spiral contradicting himself with every post he makes.
A "protocol", in this context, is a procedure in which a given task should be carried out. You have a list of actions to go through in the protocol. This is nothing weird or even strange even when it comes to backup. But it is unusual to refer to an automatic backup function as a "backup protocol" since by the very fact that it's automatic it means there are no steps to take. It is done automatically.
Tony tried to retcon this into sayiing that the protocol is "internal" in the backup function and implemented by the developer, at which point I - a developer (and others) - pointed out that programmers rarely refer to their internal code structure as "protocols", so it was still an unusual word to be used. Not incorrect or even wrong - just unusual - and as I've said, the kind of term a layman would use to describe something he doesn't know anything about.
-- Sandman[.net]
2013-11-16-
