Many famous and/or well-read authors show little or no scientific or engineering rigour in the formulation of their conclusions. They are basically saying "Do this 'cos I said you would get better results".
So many blog posts are exactly the same. After reading Be neat, and the rest will follow I was moved to make just that point in the comments. It's not that I don't agree or disagree with what they are saying, it's just that I came to realize what was missing from the blog post.
Now me writing long comments of this kind of thing to blogs:
- Hmm. Where's your evidence and scientific method? What you say may well be true but you have no science to back it up. You might as well be harping on about a flat earth!
- Do you have an impartial and reproducible tool to determine neatness for example?
- Do others perception of neatness coincide with yours?
- Any emperical statistics to back up your statement?
- Where is the graph of neatness vs "cost" to back up what you are saying?
- You might be right but you have not shown scientifically that you are right. You could be selling snake oil!
... Is not snappy and is not likely to grow so What I think is needed is an anagram.
Naarp!If you think that a post is all about trying to sell you the best way to do something when programming, but the post makes no attempt to show you reproducible evidence supporting their claim then just slap a
In the comments, where NAARP stands for:
If spoken, Naarp is pronounced as if spoken by a village idiot/country bumpkin. I was thinking especially of the large guy in Hot fuzz who says Yaarp for yes, and of Simon Pegg thinking up Naarp when impersonating him to mean no.
Hopefully it can show that people can recognise the lack of scientific method in the industry and maybe nudge authors to be aware that their audience is now aware of this too.