At 02:14 PM 9/16/2004, Mike Hord wrote:

>I'm not sure I understand the distinction here:  isn't tailoring a
>system to fit the need the same thing as solving a problem?
>
>For example, Dave's system of using "Dilberts" to measure the
>angle is just an example of him making a system which nicely
>fits the need at hand.

I just thought it was much more elegant than trying to do 16 bit math to handle 360 degrees, and since I couldn't achieve that precision anyway, there was no point in trying to preserve it.

>I suppose "tailor" may not be the best word.  Perhaps "fabricate"
>or "create" fits better?
>
>I do agree that "tweaking" until your test works is NOT the best
>way to go.  Unfortunately, though, that seems
>to be the "preferred" (read: most common) method of system
>development which was taught at least at my university.  :-(

Very dangerous.  When things don't act as you expect, you'd best find out why.
Designs where this is done, routinely fall apart on the production floor.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist