Open Source Software - Re: re-use in physical simulations

Author

Re: re-use in physical simulations

galathaea

2006-10-04, 4:06 am

In article <bet5i25uhrrh6c04itsilqiuckat71f5uq@4ax.com>, Ron Jeffries
<ronjeffries@acm.org> wrote:

!! On 3 Oct 2006 12:31:49 -0700, "galathaea" <galathaea@gmail.com> wrote:
!!
!! >but i may be missing some important point here
!!
!! This is off topic for comp.software.extreme-programming. Please don't
reply to
!! all groups.

i only desire responses that are topical

when someone mentions
that i may have done something unwise
i go to the experts and try to learn

on these groups
i only want to discuss software process

in particular
i want to see if the software process described
is what agile frameworks would promote

and illustrates a useful method of reuse

because these are the expertise of the groups posted to

i believe it is actually derivable in these frameworks
and is a natural consequence of keep it simple
and generalisations of collective code ownership

chromatic mentions using libraries and 3rd party tools
in his little pocketbook on xp
in illustrating kiss

or

in other words

would an agile team
tasked with building a simulations system for an engineering firm
consider it wise to consult past source of simulations
perhaps requesting source usage priveleges?

or is this unwise?

or is this really orthogonal?

can extreme programming promote methods
that for other reasons are unwise?

is this a flaw?

i do understand the nature of the example
is controversial in and of itself
and will ask if it is unwise in other ways
in the groups appropriate to those ways
without spamming your groups

my problem is that i do not know in what way it is unwise
and would like to s

expert review

i believe my questions were off-topic to the c++ group
which i have removed
(but had kept it to continue the discussion's origin
because i felt it impolite otherwise)

-=-=-=-=-=-=- stuff below the top-post -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-=-=-=-=-=-=- restores some context -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

> let me try to expand
> and please ignore the political data
> as only illustrative of the concept in a given domain
>
> a friend of mine wants to do simulations
> of the collapse of world trade 7
> she has certain non-standard beliefs in this area
> but due to her training in physical simulations
> she wants to be scientific about it
> and run some tests
>
> i usually play devil's advocate to her
> but i see such simulations as
> potentially offering new engineering solutions
> to prevent future collapses
>
> and i have a game physics engine
> i have been working on over the years
>
> so
> as good americans
> we decided to try to find ways to make money
> off a national tragedy
> by developing some of these simulations
> (which she eagerly hopes are actually futile
> and goads me on)
>
> now she went and asked the NIST
> which has run numerous simulations
> of the collapse of the two towers and the nearby wtc7
> for a copy of their algorithms and data
> (actually, she talked her mate into doing it
> who has a more relevant background =) )
>
> the biggest reuse benefit would be the skeleton data for wtc7
> as my current models is a very weak mockup from the basic data
> found in the FEMA report
>
> very basic composite beam placement
> the three main gravity column transfers
> the cantilever column transfer on floor 7
> four moment frames
>
> but the details can be very important for such models
> and it is expected that the data from NIST's models
> are more professionally laid out and more detailed
>
> the algorithms used would also be useful
> though we have some idea from the NIST report on the two towers
> and I suspect my own algorithms
> (common statics calculations from a first-year course
> with some basic newtonian dynamics)
> would give similar results
>
> neither i nor my overeager friend
> though
> considered it unwise to ask for such details
> as we have both done so for published simulations work in the past
> (myself in an undergrad paper whose data made it into
> work on three-body recombination
> and my friend whose grad thesis in optimal circuit design
> reused random graph algorithm work of another team)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Ron Jeffries

2006-10-17, 7:02 pm

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:09:14 GMT, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:

>The best compromise is top-down motivation for certain hard things, such as
>pushing all the desks together to, make a programming pit. After the
>programmers are mostly pairing, then a common style guideline should emerge.
>So the guideline itself should not be imposed top-down.

Phlip: How do you know that's the best compromise?

--
Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
I'm giving the best advice I have. You get to decide if it's true for you.

Phlip

2006-10-17, 7:02 pm

Ron Jeffries wrote:

> Phlip wrote:
>
>
> Phlip: How do you know that's the best compromise?

Overwhelming inexperience with process improvement of any kind.

--
Phlip
[url]http://www.greencheese.us/Z

Land[/url] <-- NOT a blog!!!

Sponsored Links