WCK evolution or uncertainty

[Hendrik]

There is a different about evolution or uncertainty when one keeps changing one's technics.

If one knows about the root of technics and the reason to change then it is an evolution.

If one doesn't know about the root of technics and making changing for sake of to be "different" or following the trend....
then it is uncertainty.


What do you think?

[reneritchie]

I think d@mn few know but most think they do (and for some reason breed much faster).

RR

[yuanfen]

Good distinction- it seems to me.
Sun Lutang's development of sun taichi out of hsing yi, pakua and wu taichi is evolutionary.
wck to jkd and beyond is uncertainty.(still can produce a good fighter on the short run- long run uncertainty and uncertainty on what is passed on))

[teazer]

Sun Lutang's development of sun taichi out of hsing yi, pakua and wu taichi is evolutionary.

Perhaps even that depends on one's opinion. It might be an evolution for one of the sources but be smaller than the sum of the parts.

[yuanfen]

Possibly you mean "some" rather than "sum".
Do you know many or anyone who dealt with the "sum"
better than Sun- both in theory and application in real fights?

[kj]

Originally posted by Hendrik
<snip>What do you think?

One of the most consistent sources for introducing new bugs into existing software is through the process of making changes to it. This is true regardless if those changes are intended to be additions, enhancements, refinements, or fixes for an existing problem.

A lot of metrics have been collected over years which confirm change as a source of new errors. In general, there is a considerable probability* of introducing new bugs when making changes.

[*Probability greater than 0, and less than 1 or 100%.]

I propose that this tendency may hold true of systems in general, and not merely software systems; thus the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In the case of attempting to fix an existing problem, sometimes bugs which are introduced are more egregious than the original problem. So there is also a chance that new problems may have the same or higher negative impact than the old problems.

In risk management terms, Probability * Impact (a.k.a. Loss) = Risk Exposure. More simply put, while making changes may fix problems, implement enhancements, etc., the act of doing so also introduces new quality risks.

I personally advocate for prudence and a conservative hand in making changes, whether the object is software or Wing Chun. Indeed, an understanding of "what is" and also "why it is the way it is" can be very useful in considering which changes are truly appropriate, and which risks are worth accepting.

So, in my considered opinion, the question of "uncertainty" is quite relevant.

Regards,
Kathy Jo

[kungfu cowboy]

Nerd alert!:eek: ;) :) :D

[kj]

Originally posted by kungfu cowboy
Nerd alert!:eek: ;) :) :D

Be nice. I don't want to have to rap your knuckles with my slipstick.
- kj

[kungfu cowboy]

:D

[yuanfen]

KJ makes sense on this one.

[teazer]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Possibly you mean "some" rather than "sum".
Do you know many or anyone who dealt with the "sum"
better than Sun- both in theory and application in real fights?

Nope & nope to the question & the statement. Can't say I ever met the chap, but given he learned from the 'sum of the parts' rather than the filtered combination, that doesn't necessarily mean that what he taught was better than what he learned.
To add additional grist to the mill, evolved towards what end? Were SLT's students better fighters than he was? Assuming he cut out all the inefficient parts of the other systems, they should be. Or does it make them healthier quicker?

[Marshdrifter]

Originally posted by teazer
To add additional grist to the mill, evolved towards what end? Were SLT's students better fighters than he was? Assuming he cut out all the inefficient parts of the other systems, they should be. Or does it make them healthier quicker?

Perhaps it is more acceptable to adjust aspects of the art when
you use it, but keep it traditional (or at least separate the
portions of other arts) when you teach it. This would allow the
student to find their most effective way, which is what the teacher
did.

[kungfu cowboy]

KJ, I was only teasing.

[yuanfen]

Can't say I ever met the chap,

((He died in 1928. Lots of fampous masters met him))

but given he learned from the 'sum of the parts' rather than the filtered combination, that doesn't necessarily mean that what he taught was better than what he learned.

((I didnt say anything about better. Example of an evolution in the sense of a new art. Most arts including taiji and wing chun evolved from other arts. Sun had first rate reachers in eachof the 3 key arts- hsing yi, pakua and wu taichi. Except for his teachers whom he respectedhe defeated leading practitioners of those arts)))

To add additional grist to the mill, evolved towards what end? Were SLT's students better fighters than he was? Assuming he cut out all the inefficient parts of the other systems, they should be. Or does it make them healthier quicker?

(( He was not interested in mass producing students.Not a matter of cutting out but more a matter of understanding root principles. But those that he taught including members of his family apprently were quite good. Good Sun taichi is still not mass produced. He lived to be over 90 and was still involved in challenge matches in his 60s.
I agree that most "evolutions" are flimsy but ever so often you get
someone really creative who stood on the shoulders of giants.
Ip Man , also IMO comes to mind. He "tinkered" with, "pruned" and "smoothened out" things in the art that he taught.

[kj]

Originally posted by kungfu cowboy
KJ, I was only teasing.

I knew that. Besides, you'd better be only teasing. ;):p;)

Regards,
- kj

P.S. Nerds and geeks are cool .

[kungfu cowboy]

Cool.(sigh of relief) Hey, that means I must be cool too!:)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by kj
One of the most consistent sources for introducing new bugs into existing software is through the process of making changes to it. This is true regardless if those changes are intended to be additions, enhancements, refinements, or fixes for an existing problem.......I propose that this tendency may hold true of systems in general, and not merely software systemsKJ,

I absolutely agree with your analysis of systems thinking and the probability that change has a high probability of introducing undesired side effects or bugs. Anyone who has been involved in software development has experienced this first hand. :)

So, this begs the question. Why make changes? As you've already noted, there is a perceived need to enhance the existing system, or repair an existing bug. Also, while the system may try to remain the same, the world around it is changing.

In reality, we can never achieve a state of homeostasis or maintain an internal equilibrium. It is natural that things must either grow or atrophy. In the long term, to try and keep things the same is futile. I would think that this evolution should be slow, selective and purposeful, but that's just my opinion.......

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Matrix

[anerlich]

Good posts, kj and matrix. From another pro software developer.

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by Matrix
So, this begs the question. Why make changes?

Why, marketing of course. Changing the offer to better appeal and sell. Money Money.
:)

[rogue]

Originally posted by kj
One of the most consistent sources for introducing new bugs into existing software is through the process of making changes to it. This is true regardless if those changes are intended to be additions, enhancements, refinements, or fixes for an existing problem.......I propose that this tendency may hold true of systems in general, and not merely software systems Systems will change so how does one counter potential flaws introduced into a system? First we acknowlage that the flaws, (the term bug implies that something outside the system made things go wrong), are man made. The best way to detect any flaws introduced is to review the changes and search for any obvious falts, stress test them in as realistic environment as possible, and then to try and break the system and the new changes by introducing things that shouldn't happen but may have a chance of happening. Like KJ I believe that this process holds for systems in general and not just software systems which is only part of a bigger system (the company) anyways.

[teazer]

Originally posted by yuanfen
[B((He died in 1928. Lots of famous masters met him))[/B]

*Sadly, I am not a famous master, nor even an unfamous master! I have, however, heard of him.

((I didnt say anything about better. Example of an evolution in the sense of a new art. Most arts including taiji and wing chun evolved from other arts. Sun had first rate reachers in eachof the 3 key arts- hsing yi, pakua and wu taichi. Except for his teachers whom he respectedhe defeated leading practitioners of those arts)))

*Both 'evolution' and 'develop' kinda presume an implication of better (or at least better in a particular new environment), otherwise it could be for instance 'create' which doesn't have those overtones. However, from the above, I'll assume you didn't mean or imply 'better'. I'm sure the people who still practice eg bagua, hsing-I or tai chi in a less consolidated manner are also grateful ;-)

(( He was not interested in mass producing students.Not a matter of cutting out but more a matter of understanding root principles. But those that he taught including members of his family apprently were quite good. Good Sun taichi is still not mass produced. He lived to be over 90 and was still involved in challenge matches in his 60s.
I agree that most "evolutions" are flimsy but ever so often you get
someone really creative who stood on the shoulders of giants.
Ip Man , also IMO comes to mind. He "tinkered" with, "pruned" and "smoothened out" things in the art that he taught.

*As both YM & SLT were superb at their respective styles, I certainly appreciate their efforts at improving/refining the systems. I am also glad that some separate knowledge exists of the systems they themselves learned. IMO it gives a better perspective of the lineages & understanding of the principals upon which they are founded.

[Marshdrifter]

Like Rogue said, systems will change. A teacher will teach a bunch
of students. Some of those students will go on to teach the
style (or their understanding of it) to even more students, some
of whom will go on to teach their understanding of it, and on and
on. Some will make obvious changes they feel is needed. Others
will try to teach it as they learned it.

Gradually and unintentionally, there will be divergence between
the different branches. This is much like the way language works.
Over time, changes will naturally occur. Some will try to use the
analogy of oral traditions, which can remain exactly the same
over time. Unfortunately, this only works for precisely presented
things. Forms, certainly, can count to this, but there's more to a
martial art than just forms. If you were doing a form with precisely
taught forms, then it could conceivably remain static over the long
period of time (barring intentional changes or just plain laziness),
however most martial arts, Wing Chun included, teach more than
just the forms and it's those aspects which will gradually change.
Granted, this will be over a long period of time, which is why most
of the major differences between branches decended from Yip
Man were intentional. Still, little differences may be apparent that
is the result of general drift.

Rogue suggests that stress testing can check for potential flaws,
and this is correct, but it could conceivably be possible to slow
the process of unintentional drift through the constant comparison
between branches. Linguists do this to find proto-languages.
Unfortunately, there may be sufficient drift between the branches
(some of which is intentional) to make this difficult without
knowing the selective processes that might have contributed to
the drift (say... the need to fight on the ground).

[yuanfen]

Gradually and unintentionally, there will be divergence between
the different branches. This is much like the way language works.
Over time, changes will naturally occur. Some will try to use the
analogy of oral traditions, which can remain exactly the same
over time. Unfortunately, this only works for precisely presented
things. Forms, certainly, can count to this, but there's more to a
martial art than just forms.(Marshdrifter)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuanfen's response:
Largely true. However some important caveats with the above generalization.
1. Some languages- that of math and science hold their meanings fairly firmly over time. Peano's postulates on arithmetic and related numbers and Newton's equations and calculus holds true today. Involves clear understanding of principles.
2. Some oral traditions are indeed precisely presented,
and excruciatingly practised and are maintained over time. Some
mantras in Hindu pujas have remained constant over many centuries.
3. Forms are necessary but not sufficient for maintaining the core of an art. (Good art and good science have some things in common). One needs a teaching tradition of disciplined transmission and understanding. The average physicist or engineer or the average artist is not a good source of communication on the grounding principles in detail of what they do---thats where the xerox of a xerox keeps getting fainter or
subjective interpretations of the principles can result in formless diversity. To avoid wing chun controversies- Chen Xiao Wang's Lao Jia comes from his 17th century ancestor Chen Wan Ting, the
founder of Chen taiji. A close knit teaching tradition in Chen village has ensured quality control without stfling creativity over
centuries despite wars, brigandage, Maoism, Cultural revolution,
modernization etc. CXW on his visits with his youngest son and
CXW's younger brother in Chen village in teaching CXW's son ensures that Chen Wanting and Chen Fake's legacy is pretty well
transmitted.
It is commercial and broken transmission of teaching that are the real threat to the core of a good source of rare knowledge.
(pardon my keyboarding and message window maintaining incompetence)

[Marshdrifter]

Originally posted by yuanfen
1. Some languages- that of math and science hold their meanings fairly firmly over time. Peano's postulates on arithmetic and related numbers and Newton's equations and calculus holds true today. Involves clear understanding of principles.
I'd almost consider these to be jargon, which is a part of
language, instead of whole languages themselves. These things
have hard precise meanings that really aren't open to
interpretation whereas words within a language often shift in
meaning. OTOH, jargon tends to be more static in some
disciplines, except maybe for archaeological theory, where the
trend seems to be making up five words (without fully defining
them) in every article written.



2. Some oral traditions are indeed precisely presented,
and excruciatingly practised and are maintained over time. Some
mantras in Hindu pujas have remained constant over many centuries.
Of course, traditions do not necessarily equate with history. The
traditions may be historically accurate or not, but this has little
bearing as to their consistancy. OTOH, oral traditions are not
always passed on with such rigor (perhaps by design?) and even
those that are sometimes seem to show some evidence of drift.


3. Forms are necessary but not sufficient for maintaining the core of an art. (Good art and good science have some things in common). One needs a teaching tradition of disciplined transmission and understanding. The average physicist or engineer or the average artist is not a good source of communication on the grounding principles in detail of what they do
I don't know... given enough time, anyone should be able to pass
on what they do. They just need enough time to pass it on and
not have the student hang around for a short time, then take off
thinking they understand. I'd say this should be true even for
those of us who are "average" (or even mediocre :) ) in our
trades.

Occasionally, I have to lead class. If my Sifu can't make it, for
whatever reason, the highest ranking student leads class and
usually that's me (we're a small, young school). I full well know
that there's a ton of stuff I haven't figured out with regards to
Wing Chun and the other students know that as well. They still
ask questions and it forces me to help formulize what I do in
my mind or, more usually, causes me to come up with even more
questions. All of this gets eventually gets checked with my Sifu
when I'm working around him. If I'm wrong, he'll correct me.
I can't (nor do I pretend to) teach exceptional Wing Chun. I teach
mediocre Wing Chun, when I have to lead class, but as long as it's
the better Wing Chun than what the lower ranked students have,
they'll (hopefully) learn something that'll improve their skill.
Granted, they'll only learn mediocre Wing Chun, but at the next
class with Sifu, they'll learn good Wing Chun. Eventually, perhaps
they (and me as well) will move to someplace where they can
learn exceptional Wing Chun. Skill lays on a spectrum and you
should always learn from someone higher up on the spectrum
from you.

This is just me ranting, I'm not really putting words in your
mouth--er keyboard-- to demonstrate the ability of one to pass
on what they know. In the case of your examples, the average
physicist will pass on average physics, which may be all the
person needs. Other, more excellent physicists will teach
excellent, more advanced, physics and keep that tradition alive.
As long as the average physicist 'fesses up to only teaching
average physics, there should be no problem. It should be
understood by students that just because one teaches does not
necessarily mean that the teacher knows everything there is to
know.



---thats where the xerox of a xerox keeps getting fainter or
subjective interpretations of the principles can result in formless diversity. To avoid wing chun controversies- Chen Xiao Wang's Lao Jia comes from his 17th century ancestor Chen Wan Ting, the
founder of Chen taiji. A close knit teaching tradition in Chen village has ensured quality control without stfling creativity over
centuries despite wars, brigandage, Maoism, Cultural revolution,
modernization etc. CXW on his visits with his youngest son and
CXW's younger brother in Chen village in teaching CXW's son ensures that Chen Wanting and Chen Fake's legacy is pretty well
transmitted.
Good example, although I know nothing about it. I'll be making
a few assumptions about this, so stick with me if I get somethings
really off.

1) I would suspect that there has been some drift (however
minute) between Chen Wan Ting and the current practicioners
from Chen village. It is pretty much impossible to test such a
suspicion, unfortunately, as my time machine lies dormant with a
bad motivator. :)

2) What little drift that has occured has been kept to a minimum,
not merely through a careful transmission of information and
teaching structure, but also through the constant reinforcement
of crosschecking between teachers and students. There is, I
believe, more than one teacher (although they have a head
teacher) at chen village and certainly more than one student.
They quite possibly reinforce, even if unoffically, each other's
transmission of skill.

In fact, I'm developing an interesting hypothesis in my head that
all rigorous oral teachings that have remained constant had some
form of social reinforcement to maintain the static constant nature
of what was taught. Someday I may have to test that.

3) Not all change is bad. It could be good and is often neutral.
Sometimes it's both good and bad (it rarely has only one effect).
The practicioners of Chen village presumably tested what they knew on a periodic basis, which would provide the stress-testing
rogue suggested. This would be necessary as not just a
secondary way of checking for drift, but to make sure that Chen
Tai Chi, in it's ever constant state, still managed to stand up
against the new and changed martial arts.



It is commercial and broken transmission of teaching that are the real threat to the core of a good source of rare knowledge.

It can be, yes. OTOH, good things can arise from ashes (like a
pet bird I had once...). Still, it's the lack of foundation that these
forms of transmission most often create and that's bad.

[yuanfen]

In fact, I'm developing an interesting hypothesis in my head that
all rigorous oral teachings that have remained constant had some
form of social reinforcement to maintain the static constant nature
of what was taught. Someday I may have to test that.

((Good thesis. Proof of it is all around us. In well maintained oral traditions- the teacher-student relationship and the teaching and listening qualities are enhanced and reinforced))

3) Not all change is bad.
((Real paradigms change slowly- operations, dervations and applications can change fast. Of course not all change is bad..But when technological change is way ahead of human understanding there can be problems ))

It could be good and is often neutral.

((very seldom are things really neutral and value free though it may appear that way at times))

Sometimes it's both good and bad (it rarely has only one effect).
The practicioners of Chen village presumably tested what they knew on a periodic basis, which would provide the stress-testing
rogue suggested.

((They did... Chen Fake for instance went out and tested his stuff against others including masters. Chen Fake was Chen Xiao Wang's grandfather. There are and have been wing chun folks who have stress tested their competence and know whther or not they have the goods)))))))

This would be necessary as not just a
secondary way of checking for drift, but to make sure that Chen
Tai Chi, in it's ever constant state, still managed to stand up
against the new and changed martial arts.

((True for Chen Fake in the 20th century, true for Fen Zi Quan and Chen Xiao Wang))


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is commercial and broken transmission of teaching that are the real threat to the core of a good source of rare knowledge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It can be, yes. OTOH, good things can arise from ashes (like a
pet bird I had once...). Still, it's the lack of foundation that these
forms of transmission most often create and that's bad.

((true- lots of manics assume that they are creating the grand theory-turns out to be bunkum- like some papers done by students in one night with sleep deprivation, coffee, tobacco etc-a few hours before due date. Read in the light of day- bunkum again. Like folks making up wing chun without guidance or foundation.)))

[yuanfen]

In fact, I'm developing an interesting hypothesis in my head that
all rigorous oral teachings that have remained constant had some
form of social reinforcement to maintain the static constant nature
of what was taught. Someday I may have to test that.

((Good thesis. Proof of it is all around us. In well maintained oral traditions- the teacher-student relationship and the teaching and listening qualities are enhanced and reinforced))

3) Not all change is bad.
((Real paradigms change slowly- operations, dervations and applications can change fast. Of course not all change is bad..But when technological change is way ahead of human understanding there can be problems ))

It could be good and is often neutral.

((very seldom are things really neutral and value free though it may appear that way at times))

Sometimes it's both good and bad (it rarely has only one effect).
The practicioners of Chen village presumably tested what they knew on a periodic basis, which would provide the stress-testing
rogue suggested.

((They did... Chen Fake for instance went out and tested his stuff against others including masters. Chen Fake was Chen Xiao Wang's grandfather. There are and have been wing chun folks who have stress tested their competence and know whther or not they have the goods)))))))

This would be necessary as not just a
secondary way of checking for drift, but to make sure that Chen
Tai Chi, in it's ever constant state, still managed to stand up
against the new and changed martial arts.

((True for Chen Fake in the 20th century, true for Fen Zi Quan and Chen Xiao Wang))


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is commercial and broken transmission of teaching that are the real threat to the core of a good source of rare knowledge.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It can be, yes. OTOH, good things can arise from ashes (like a
pet bird I had once...). Still, it's the lack of foundation that these
forms of transmission most often create and that's bad.

((true- lots of manics assume that they are creating the grand theory-turns out to be bunkum- like some papers done by students in one night with sleep deprivation, coffee, tobacco etc-a few hours before due date. Read in the light of day- bunkum again. Like folks making up wing chun without guidance or foundation.)))

[Matrix]

Originally posted by rogue
Systems will change so how does one counter potential flaws introduced into a system? First we acknowlage that the flaws, (the term bug implies that something outside the system made things go wrong), are man made. The term bug does NOT imply something outside the system. It is internal to the system. It's a part of the system that is flawed. The term "bug" was originally coined by the fact that an actual bug (I believe it was a moth) was trapped inside the system.


The best way to detect any flaws introduced is to review the changes and search for any obvious falts, stress test them in as realistic environment as possible, and then to try and break the system and the new changes by introducing things that shouldn't happen but may have a chance of happening. Searching for "obvious faults" will probaly lead to find obvious flaws. Often you need to look beyond the obvious. Additionally, "stress testing" relies on the fact that you know where and how to stess it, and the "realisitic environment as possible" rarely matches the requirements of the real world. That's why so many systems that look great in controlled environments, like labs, but fail when exposed to the real world. Testing is often done in a Black Box way, where you supply certain input to the system and see if the expect output is received at the other end of the box. Unfortunately you get very limited test coverage doing this. Much of the system is left untested, and it's a reason why software quality is often so poor.

anerlich, I'm sorry to say that I'm not a software developer, but my experience has been in Quality Assurance and Product Management. I've seen a few bugs in my days.

burnsypoo, you are correct. This is why we see so much bloatware on the market. Products where users use only 20% of the features. I mean, do we really need an animated paper clip pestering you in a word-processor?..........I think not. But as Jerry McGuire says......"show me the money" :cool:

Matrix

[rogue]

The term bug does NOT imply something outside the system. It is internal to the system. It's a part of the system that is flawed. The term "bug" was originally coined by the fact that an actual bug (I believe it was a moth) was trapped inside the system. I've been in this business while we still had punch cards, core dumps, and wrote code with pencils on paper. The bug, which is in the Smithsonian, was something from outside the system that had nothing to do with human error in the engineering of the computer or the programming of the same. Unless you count leaving the door open so the darn thing got in. I can also accept that the term bug now means a defect introduced into a system by human negligence, error or accident. It's a nicer way of saying "we screwed up", by attributing the defects to a modern day gremlin.


Testing is often done in a Black Box way, where you supply certain input to the system and see if the expect output is received at the other end of the box. Unfortunately you get very limited test coverage doing this. Much of the system is left untested, and it's a reason why software quality is often so poor. Personally I use code coverage as a basic means of testing my teams code before it goes to QA. It entails making sure every statement gets executed and is costly as all get out to do, but I have an excellent record on delivering code that has a low rate of defects. Another is "to try and break the system and the new changes by introducing things that shouldn't happen but may have a chance of happening." Think of the Cheung /Boztepe fight where WC had on the bad footware as a martial example of this. Or for a computer system bad data being introduced in as a example. :)


I mean, do we really need an animated paper clip pestering you in a word-processor? Don't forget BOB. That's what happens when developers sleep with their bosses.

[anerlich]

anerlich, I'm sorry to say that I'm not a software developer, but my experience has been in Quality Assurance and Product Management. I've seen a few bugs in my days.

No need to be sorry ,and in that profession I'm sure you have.


I've been in this business while we still had punch cards, core dumps, and wrote code with pencils on paper.

Me too. Burroughs B6700, used to write all our code on coding forms for the keypunch girls to punch.


Think of the Cheung /Boztepe fight where WC had on the bad footware as a martial example of this.

Good idea, though the analogy here IMO doesn't work. You'd have to have premeditation on WC's part where he wore the shoes expecting to be attacked. This IMO is more like a bug reported by the customer base after the software was released, not found during testing.

Seems a lot of people didn't take note. Lots of people wear those shoes still, including William Cheung at subsequent seminars. Personally, short of 8" stilettos, Elton John Pinball Wizard platform shoes, or roller blades, I think they are the utter PITS as regards footwear for training or fighting.


Don't forget BOB. That's what happens when developers sleep with their bosses.

I've only had one direct female boss, and, nothing to do with her gender, but it was one of the most unpleasant periods of my working life. I think I woiuld have eviscerated myself with a rusty saw rather than sleep with her. She was eventually fired, to much rejoicing by the entire department.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by rogue
I've been in this business while we still had punch cards, core dumps, and wrote code with pencils on paper. ...........I can also accept that the term bug now means a defect introduced into a system by human negligence, error or accident. It's a nicer way of saying "we screwed up", by attributing the defects to a modern day gremlin. I've been around a little longer than I care to admit, myself. ;) I know some people like to think that you can dress a bug up to look like a feature, but it's still a bug.


.......... but I have an excellent record on delivering code that has a low rate of defects. Sounds like you're better than most. :cool:


Think of the Cheung /Boztepe fight where WC had on the bad footware as a martial example of this. Sure, that makes sense. In reality, the martial arts system will be required to work (or they may not work) under different conditions in real world situations than it does in the training hall. You don't get to warm up, and you just might not be wearing ideal footware when the time comes, amongst other things. However, the system should still work regardless.

Cheers,
Matrix

[YungChun]

Originally posted by kj


One of the most consistent sources for introducing new bugs into existing software is through the process of making changes to it. This is true regardless if those changes are intended to be additions, enhancements, refinements, or fixes for an existing problem.



A great and possibly new angle on this. As a part-time developer I can appreciate the truth in this very much.

Even when the same person who wrote the code tries to 'fix it' things can go wrong fast. If someone tries to change another’s code who doesn't know exactly why the code is there and everything it does chaos seems inevitable.

In essence, would be changers are implying that they understand the code better than the people who wrote it - quite a claim for anyone of any level.

Many people like to change things they don't understand into things they can understand. It would behoove the would be changers to dedicate more energy to understanding the true nature of the system in question - that's what it's all about.

[S.Teebas]

Well this computer analogy is getitng pushed! :)

I think somtimes when writing program code, even if you leave out a tiny little (seemingly insifignant!) comma, it can screw the entire program up!

I think most people need to mke sure everything is in there in the first place before they decide to edit!

[kj]

Originally posted by YungChun
Even when the same person who wrote the code tries to 'fix it' things can go wrong fast. If someone tries to change another’s code who doesn't know exactly why the code is there and everything it does chaos seems inevitable.

In essence, would be changers are implying that they understand the code better than the people who wrote it - quite a claim for anyone of any level.

Many people like to change things they don't understand into things they can understand. It would behoove the would be changers to dedicate more energy to understanding the true nature of the system in question - that's what it's all about.

IMHO you, YungChun, have hit the mark solidly. :)

Many other excellent observations in this thread also; my apology for not commenting on more of them specifically and directly. I knew nerds were cool. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

But "The Revenge of the Nerds" was filmed on the campus of the University of Arizona in Tucson! No movies on the Geeks yet-
unless spell check missed an r.

[red5angel]

"Many people like to change things they don't understand into things they can understand. It would behoove the would be changers to dedicate more energy to understanding the true nature of the system in question - that's what it's all about. "

There is a profound truth in this Yungchun. Most changes are made by people who havent thoroughly studied the system or have failed to understand on some level. Many of the changes to wingchun I have seen are from either this gap in knowledge or from the desire to market something "different". I have also found taht many wingchun people, once they have experienced this new stuff, tend to go looking for the old classic.

[red5angel]

"a boxing influence on wing chun may go two ways - one might be adding hooks, jabs, ropework and sparring, the other might be practicing against boxing techniques, tactics and strategy, learning to visually read an opponent - shoulders, head, elbows, feet - learning about range and angles... does your trad wing chun sifu know how to spot a thai kick from a cross, or just how to block a palm in dan chi sao?"

The first example would be one of changing WC, adding things that may not be in the system, or may not be understood as in the system. The second is an example of how to appraoch different ways of doing things while staying with the precepts and ideals of wingchun. Instead of adapting boxing moves to beat a boxer, they practice against boxing techniques to learn how to use what they already know and ot expand their understanding.

[joy chaudhuri]

From our resident traditional Jedi who pushes a brief for pure wing chun:
I have also found taht many wingchun people, once they have experienced this new stuff, tend to go looking for the old classic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then he talks about playing with tai chi balls.!!!

[red5angel]

Joy, of all people on this forum you should know how changes to a system affect it. One of these days we may even get you to talk about it ;)

[joy chaudhuri]

red5angel sez:Joy, of all people on this forum you should know how changes to a system affect it. One of these days we may even get you to talk about it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really- ? I am never opposed to civil discussion of what I do.
I dont think one needs taichi balls for doing wing chun- for chen taiji its a different matter.

[[Censored]]

..."hypocrisy" is now spelled with an "R" AND a "5". :)

[red5angel]

Joy, I wouldnt say one needs to use a taichiball for wingchun either ;)

[Atleastimnotyou]

no one ever said the taichi ball was needed for wing chun. most everyone on this forum seems to like to put blinders on when they read. the either misinterpret what is said or ignore parts of the post and just argue one part rather than the whole.

[rogue]

Matrix

Sounds like you're better than most. Definatly not, I just hate having my mistakes cause a client call me up at 3 AM because their system went down.;) I also like to consider QA people the last line of defense against my blunders, not the front line. I've even been known to by them doughnuts.:)

[red5angel]

atleastimnotyou - I take it as a sign most of the people who choose to argue that way dont really have an argument, probably belong to the category of people I am talking about, too much internet, not enough training. For instance, while Joy claims to be able to talk about changes civily, I havent seen him on three forums even take a comment about it in stride. Instead it turns into an attack on his lineage and on his instructor instead of a genuine inquiry, always makes you wonder what gets him so defensive...... ;)
You are correct however, while I practice taichi on the side, I am not filling gaps, and most of these guys are aware of this as it has been discussed before.

[[Censored]]

Does Red's teacher's teacher's teacher play with Tai Chi balls?

If not, why not? :confused:

If not, who made the change? :confused:

If not, does the person who made that change have a better understanding of Wing Chun, than everyone who came before? :confused:

[red5angel]

Stil not paying attention I see Censored. Its ok though I can hold your hand through this one too. If you will just take the word changed out of all yoru sentences in the above post you will get what I am talking about and what atleastimnotyou tried to point out people were missing.
All better now?

[[Censored]]

Ah, I see. So on your home planet, going from "not doing X" to "doing X" is NOT considered a "change"! Sorry, I'm only an Earthling and I only understand Earth English. :)

And if I want to start my SLT with flying kicks, technically that's not a "change" either. Cool, 'cause chicks dig the flashy stuff.

[Atleastimnotyou]

Censored... from your posts i get the impression that you think our lineage uses taichi balls and what not... we don't.

[anerlich]

Arguably, a professional programmer spends most of his/her time making changes to other people's code.

I've made a good living over the last three years as a troubleshooter hired to make major changes to systems developed by other consultants which for some reason of other went off the rails. Some of these systems are quite complex software products sent to a wide customer base, some bigger inhouse systems. While this is at times difficult and often very frustrating, it is sometimes necessary and always possible provided sufficient care is taken.

The customers concerned keep asking me back to do the same with other systems they have, so I must be doing it right. That said, I am VERY careful and never allow myself to become complacent about my level of skill as a programmer.

It's not a matter of presumptuously assuming you know more than the original developer about the code (though occasionally it becomes obvious that you know more than the guy before about how the code SHOULD have been written). The important thing is that changing conditions DEMAND the code be modified or rewritten. Throwing everything out and rewriting from scratch does happen, and can be necessary, but more often changes are made starting from a base of existing code to avoid wheel reinvention.

Be it Microsoft closed source or Open Source development with Linux, etc., programs continue to be changed and evolve all over the world, at an increasing pace. And a good thing too, otherwise I'd have to make my living doing accountancy, marketing, pizza delivery, etc.

Lots of people thought the world was going to come crashing down after Y2k because humanity didn't have the wherewithal to manage system change on such a huge scale. While this may not always be the case, on that occasion at least all those rugged individualists that headed into the remote wild with dried food and guns wating for the world to collapse were proved to be a right bunch of charlies.

The real question is always whether change is justified or necessary, not whether or not you or I have the ability to do it.

[anerlich]

Censored... from your posts i get the impression that you think our lineage uses taichi balls and what not... we don't.

[Censored] may be referring to a thread a while ago in which there was argument about weight training ... in which you mentioned Carl's use of the "tai chi ball".

OTOH, he ([Censored]) might just be being a smarta$$.

If you, red and Carl like doing taiji, good for you. Just don't diss anyone else who has their own ideas about exploration in MA.

[anerlich]

Originally posted by red5angel
If you will just take the word changed out of all yoru sentences in the above post

Hate to be pedantic, but the word "changed" does not appear anywhere in that post.
:D

[anerlich]

Originally posted by Atleastimnotyou
no one ever said the taichi ball was needed for wing chun. most everyone on this forum seems to like to put blinders on when they read. the either misinterpret what is said or ignore parts of the post and just argue one part rather than the whole.

I agree and will cop to an occasional transgression, as long as you don't try to pretend that you and r5a aren't as guilty of this as anyone else.

[[Censored]]

Censored... from your posts i get the impression that you think our lineage uses taichi balls and what not... we don't.

It's none of my business. For the record, I think everybody should train in whatever way pleases them.

With so many substantial issues to discuss, I just wish we weren't subjected to these inane "stylistic purity" theories on a weekly basis. Somebody teach the pony a new trick. :)

[Matrix]

Originally posted by rogue
.....I've even been known to by them doughnuts.:) I WAS right....you are better than most ;)

Cheers,
Matrix

[Matrix]

Originally posted by YungChun
Many people like to change things they don't understand into things they can understand. It would behoove the would be changers to dedicate more energy to understanding the true nature of the system in question - that's what it's all about. This is the crux of the matter. Worse yet, is when someone wants to make their own personal mark in the world by "enhancing" the system. Change for the sake of change, or for some marketing purpose - it's all bad, IMO.

Matrix

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by YungChun
Many people like to change things they don't understand into things they can understand.
Such as circle stepping to straight line stepping (aka "Walk the Horse")