Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation

[dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)]

> To paraphrase, programming is often 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.
> 
> In short, your argument is elitist and simply _wrong_.  It's true that to
> create a whole compiler you need a whole lot of knowledge, but that's true
> of any project - including operating systems. But that doesn't matter,
> because there isn't "one" person who needs to know everything.

I must disagree here. In the case of compilers 1% inspiration and
99% perspiration is simply not enough. You need in addition a good
understanding of complex data structures and algorithms, as well as
a level of knowledge of the languages involved that goes far beyond
what most programmers have, as well as a knowledge of specific compiler
issues.

> Blaah. I _bet_ that is not true.

Remember just what (in your inimitable style :-) you are saying is not
true. You are saying that it is not necessary that working on a compiler
requires knowledge. I find that a pretty extreme (and definitely incorrect
viewpoint).

> I didn't understand the whole compiler, BUT THAT DID NOT MATTER. The same
> way that most Linux kernel developers don't understand the whole kernel,
> and do not even need to.  Sure, you need people with specialized knowledge
> for specialized areas (designing the big picture etc), but that's a small
> small part of it.

Sure there are parts of any code that can be attacked and modified using
a kind of pattern matching approach (well look here, this built in was
done that way, so presumably I can add another built in this way), but
I certainly hope you do not try to attack complex optimization circuits
this way.

If you tell me that working on the kernel requires no knowledge, fine, I
accept your extensive experience here, but I don't think you begin to have
the perspective to extend this judgment to the realm of compilers :-)