Models Methods Software

Dan Hughes

Censored at Serendipity

I have moved this post to here.


September 24, 2011 - Posted by | Uncategorized


  1. IMHO, the cut is worse than a censoring of your comment. The Easterbrook cut changes the meaning of your comment. This is unfair and objectionable. Easterbrook should remove the perceived invective without distorting the point of the comment, or just delete the entire comment.

    How can you comment if the point of your comments will be distorted?

    The IV&V of the climate models are important. Important enough for Easterbrook to tolerate a little sarcasm. (How can a person in a position of authority justify being so thin skinned?) Important enough that Easterbrook carefully compare and defend his brand of IV&V against the IV&V/SQA processes you specifically reference in your other comments.

    Comment by George Crews | September 25, 2011 | Reply

  2. It has been noted before for one of Steve’s posts that real-time, safety-critical, control systems are not the proper model for the software we’re talking about. Even real-time without the safety-critical part is not the subject. It would not surprise me that Roache, Oberkampf, et at. would also suggest that the methodologies developed for scientific and engineering software are not appropriate for that application.

    One over-whelming aspect of Steve’s comments is that he has completely ignored all of the citations, apparently hasn’t read a single word of them, and then proclaims that I have advocated methodologies for real-time safety-crtitical software. And even throws in that he has seen applications:

    I’ve seen the methods you prescribe applied to the kinds of software for which they are inappropriate. The results ain’t pretty.

    Proclaiming, without having read the citations, he assures us that he has seen applications of methodologies appropriate for real-time, safety-critical software, and additionally proclaiming that these are described in the citations, applied to software for which the methodologies actually contained in the citations have been developed. And it ain’t pretty.

    That’s pretty much mixed up about as far as it is possible to be mixed up. I think it is not possible to frequently achieve such levels of arguing from a position of authority. What’s in the citations is what I say is in the citations. I have seen methodologies that are actually not in the citations applied to software for which they are not appropriate. When in fact, the applications of the methodologies actually in the citations have been applied to the software for which they have actually been developed. And that software is not the kind of software that I said the citations were appropriate for.


    Comment by Dan Hughes | September 25, 2011 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: