> I am not buying your distinction between measurements and experiments - experiments are measurements with a purpose.
I'm not making one. I'm saying that measurements don't require an experiment to be meaningful.
> You don't have to start with measurements.
I didn't say you did, I said you can. The person I was responding to claimed otherwise.
> There's a curious anti-intellectualism in software development that is opposed to any suggestion that thinking about problems is useful. It seems to go hand-in-hand with a simplistic world view that only sees dichotomies, together with the assumption that there can only be one answer.
As someone who constantly rails at the lack of engineering rigor in software "engineering", I agree completely.
I'm not making one. I'm saying that measurements don't require an experiment to be meaningful.
> You don't have to start with measurements.
I didn't say you did, I said you can. The person I was responding to claimed otherwise.
> There's a curious anti-intellectualism in software development that is opposed to any suggestion that thinking about problems is useful. It seems to go hand-in-hand with a simplistic world view that only sees dichotomies, together with the assumption that there can only be one answer.
As someone who constantly rails at the lack of engineering rigor in software "engineering", I agree completely.