> don't use a dependency to implement your core business
In logic language, you're saying "If X is your core business, don't outsource X".
> Is JSON parsing our core business? No, so why would we ever write -- and thereby commit to supporting for its entire lifetime -- JSON parsing code? All the code you write and support should be directly tied to what you as a business decide are your fundamental value propositions. Everything else you write is just fat waiting to be cut by someone who knows how to write a business case.
The rest of your argument is interpreted as "If X is not your core business, don't in-house X".
These two logical implication statements are not equivalents of each other, but are converses. Casual language often conflates If, Only-If, and If-And-Only-If.
> The code is not transformative because the quoted code is not used for some other purpose like as part of an article discussing whatever the code does, it is used to do exactly it's original job.
Hmm..
> The printing press is not transformative because the printed text is not used for some other purpose, it is used to do exactly it's original job.
See the error in your logic? The potentially transformative part is not the code itself. It's the impact to the process of creating the code.
“What’s different is we’re going to be pretty pragmatic about --- yes if, and if and when we should be making a step inside or making it outside and making sure that we have optionality to -- yeah build internally mix and match inside and outside or go outside in its entirety,”
Given the recent diversification of outsourcing, going back to PRC/ROC is not exactly going to help Intel in the long run I think.
Premise: "Normally in English dependency means something like dependent."
Conclusion: "'Dependency' in programming means the opposite of its traditional meaning"
I think the premise is wrong, leading to a wrong conclusion. Dependency and dependent are already opposites (or duals) in English, and each maps to its same meaning in computing.
>When someone says "any company", it's easy to interpret that as meaning "any company without exception". This is a very logical interpretation, but it is not necessarily reasonable to interpret it that way.
Well, it's not logical at all in the common sense of the word logical. It's like you're talking to a compiler...
In casual conversation everybody understands that it doesn't mean "absolutely every company".
In logic language, you're saying "If X is your core business, don't outsource X".
> Is JSON parsing our core business? No, so why would we ever write -- and thereby commit to supporting for its entire lifetime -- JSON parsing code? All the code you write and support should be directly tied to what you as a business decide are your fundamental value propositions. Everything else you write is just fat waiting to be cut by someone who knows how to write a business case.
The rest of your argument is interpreted as "If X is not your core business, don't in-house X".
These two logical implication statements are not equivalents of each other, but are converses. Casual language often conflates If, Only-If, and If-And-Only-If.
reply