വിശ്വാസം എന്നാൽ അറിവില്ലായ്മ ആണ്; ശാസ്ത്രത്തിൽ അത് മനുഷ്യരാശിയുടെ ഇന്നത്തെ പരിമിതിയും, മതത്തിൽ അത് മനുഷ്യന്റെ മടിയും എന്ന് മാത്രം!
Sunday, March 18, 2018
Sunday, January 14, 2018
An information technology architectural dilemma: Documentation vs Implementation
Recently, when I was taking a session on 'Progressive Web App: Are we lagging behind?' in my current company, I wanted to introduce myself to a big gathering, who apparently knew me to a certain extend. Believe me, I gave a damn thought about it that I gave no intro, but just got started with the topic. However, I being an architect (precisely solution architect), that very thought gave me few sleepless nights, pondering what really an architect does. This write-up is all about a dilemma encountered on a daily basis in any architect's life in information technology.
Who is an architect? If you avoid technical jargon, architect is one who creates architecture. Ha! As per Aristotelian syllogism, this definition has a fallacy. Now, what is architecture? Since that is the point of discussion today, let me park the question, for now.
Based on the architecture one creates, he or she is categorised into any one of the three: software, solution or enterprise architect. To set proper context, I need to put forth my view of these three roles in an organisation. The easiest comparison I've seen is a graph with technology on x-axis and strategy on y-axis, where software or technical architect lies on the right-bottom most corner, enterprise architect on the left-top most corner, while the solution architect on the centre of the graph. Since there is no cause-effect relation between technology and strategy, which on what axis doesn't really matter here and therefore the position in an organisation too. However, as remuneration is directly proportional to the risk taken, it's right to place strategy on the y-axis and enterprise architect on top.
Image courtesy: LeanIX
For me, an enterprise architect creates the architecture that converts the organisational business strategies into technical terms. And the solution architect understands the strategy and design solution. The solution architecture can be one or more of these: application architecture on functional system, technology architecture on supporting systems, security architecture on authentication and authorisation of the solution, data architecture on data flow, integration architecture on how systems communicate each other, devops architecture on delivery and maintenance of the solution and so on. Software (or technical) architect, on the other side, creates technical architecture of the individual system with details like use cases, domain object model, component design and so forth. Enough of boring explanations!
In fact, the subject of our discussion is what architecture, in software sphere, means. Though it means a lot, generally it denotes the design documents created to help the implementation of the system. That means an architect is a 'documentalist'. But we know that's not true. An architect is involved in all phases of software development. Apart from the design documents, he or she is also responsible for the proof of concept and even prototype of the solution at the minimum.
At least in few cases, proof of concept becomes an alternative to design documents, of course based on the solution complexity. However, the dilemma is not about what to choose, but where to give emphasis. In other words, what does an architect deal mostly with? Documentation or Implementation? Again there is no definite answer. It all depends on the solution and the role one plays. However, everybody would have a soft corner towards one of them. Some people, like me, love the magic of codes compiled, whereas others do the beauty of the words diagrammed.
Obviously, both are important. So let the dilemma be there. You either choose one or mix both. The latter is preferred because falling into one of them (technology or strategy) makes your process complicated. If you emphasize on documentation, your software development becomes rigid (and may be useless later) and on the other hand, if you focus on implementation, you loose the scope (and may be unaccomplished later). Therefore, an equilibrium between them is required, not a dilemma of selection. I need to confess here that I've a leaning towards implementation (technology). In fact, documenting is an art and saves a lot of time. Let all master both with a right balance and take wise decisions. At the end of the day, it's all about getting the job done better!
Who is an architect? If you avoid technical jargon, architect is one who creates architecture. Ha! As per Aristotelian syllogism, this definition has a fallacy. Now, what is architecture? Since that is the point of discussion today, let me park the question, for now.
Based on the architecture one creates, he or she is categorised into any one of the three: software, solution or enterprise architect. To set proper context, I need to put forth my view of these three roles in an organisation. The easiest comparison I've seen is a graph with technology on x-axis and strategy on y-axis, where software or technical architect lies on the right-bottom most corner, enterprise architect on the left-top most corner, while the solution architect on the centre of the graph. Since there is no cause-effect relation between technology and strategy, which on what axis doesn't really matter here and therefore the position in an organisation too. However, as remuneration is directly proportional to the risk taken, it's right to place strategy on the y-axis and enterprise architect on top.
For me, an enterprise architect creates the architecture that converts the organisational business strategies into technical terms. And the solution architect understands the strategy and design solution. The solution architecture can be one or more of these: application architecture on functional system, technology architecture on supporting systems, security architecture on authentication and authorisation of the solution, data architecture on data flow, integration architecture on how systems communicate each other, devops architecture on delivery and maintenance of the solution and so on. Software (or technical) architect, on the other side, creates technical architecture of the individual system with details like use cases, domain object model, component design and so forth. Enough of boring explanations!
In fact, the subject of our discussion is what architecture, in software sphere, means. Though it means a lot, generally it denotes the design documents created to help the implementation of the system. That means an architect is a 'documentalist'. But we know that's not true. An architect is involved in all phases of software development. Apart from the design documents, he or she is also responsible for the proof of concept and even prototype of the solution at the minimum.
At least in few cases, proof of concept becomes an alternative to design documents, of course based on the solution complexity. However, the dilemma is not about what to choose, but where to give emphasis. In other words, what does an architect deal mostly with? Documentation or Implementation? Again there is no definite answer. It all depends on the solution and the role one plays. However, everybody would have a soft corner towards one of them. Some people, like me, love the magic of codes compiled, whereas others do the beauty of the words diagrammed.
Obviously, both are important. So let the dilemma be there. You either choose one or mix both. The latter is preferred because falling into one of them (technology or strategy) makes your process complicated. If you emphasize on documentation, your software development becomes rigid (and may be useless later) and on the other hand, if you focus on implementation, you loose the scope (and may be unaccomplished later). Therefore, an equilibrium between them is required, not a dilemma of selection. I need to confess here that I've a leaning towards implementation (technology). In fact, documenting is an art and saves a lot of time. Let all master both with a right balance and take wise decisions. At the end of the day, it's all about getting the job done better!
Monday, January 1, 2018
Why should I pay extrafacultaprecium?
In fact, I'm forced to coin a new term here to explain a common but unbothered phenomenon in our society. However, please consider my economical ignorance, in case this is already known and defined by someone.
What is extrafacultaprecium? Etymologically speaking, extrafacultaprecium ('ex prodigis usus resource sumptus est') is nothing but the cost from extravagant usage of resource. In simple terms, it's the extra cost incurred for a resource due to somebody's extravagant usage of it.
To understand this term better, we need to brush up our memory of fundamental economic concepts and their relation: supply, scarcity, demand and cost. This terminology can be defined as below (may not be economically accurate though).
Supply is the total amount of a specific good or service (referred here to resource) that is available to consumers. Scarcity, on the contrary, is the condition that exists when there are not enough resources to satisfy all the wants of individuals or society.
Demand can be defined as the consumer's desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service, whereas the amount that has to be paid or given up in order to get the good or service is called cost.
From all the definitions and our common sense (if we share one), we can safely assume that the more the demand, the more the supply. And therefore, in case of natural resources (unlike services) which is limited or fixed in nature, the more the supply, the more the scarcity. And defenitely, the more the scarcity, the more the cost.
What does this imply? To make it plain, the more we use a resource, the less it's available, thus the more it costs.
Can't you go for an alternative in this case? For many a reason, it can not be plausible. Few are unavailability of choice, opportunity cost (the next highest valued alternative that is given up when a choice is made) and so on.
So far, we were looking at how the more use of a resource can lead to higher cost for the same resource. Neverthless, to understand our new term, we need to diferentiate between mere usage of a resource and extravagant usage of it.
What is the extravagant usage of a resource? Of course, it's relative. The amount (unit) of usage has nothing to do with extravagance. For instance, the amount of water being used in an appartment will defenitely be more than that of in a small household.
Then waht does really constitute extravagance of usage? With any common economical sense, we can very well say that mere usage is that of need, whereas extravagant usage is that of want. Again you can argue that need and want are relative. One's want can be somebody else's need.
However, the Google guru clearly explains that the idea of survival is real, meaning someone would die without their needs being met, whereas a want is one step up in the order from needs and is simply something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain.
By now, if we are clear of need (mere usage of resource) and want (extravagant usage of resource), it's time to revisit our newly coined term, extrafacultaprecium. It denotes the additional cost incurred for a resource by one, due to somebody else's extravagant usage of it. For example, in a hypothetical situation, a litre of petrol costs Rs 100. And imagine I used 1000 litres of petrol extravagantly, which made a small scarcity of petrol resulting an increase of Rs 1 per litre. Now the price of one litre petrol, when you go and buy, is Rs 101. Here the Rs 1 that you pay extra for a litre of petrol, just because of my extravagant usage, is called extrafacultaprecium.
Really? This phenomenon of extrafacultaprecium is true? It is very much true, if you are able to differentiate between need and want. Though the extra cost is not something taht can statistically be derived (at least for an economical ignorant like me), it is very much logical. It looks very much a common sense to me.
Now, if it is so? Am I not entitled for my want? It's my hard-earned money that I spend. An article in Times of India (dated Nov 25, 2010) was talking about Mukesh Ambani's first power bill in his godzilla-sized home, Antilia. The house with five members had generated a power bill of Rs 70,69,488 in a month. Though it takes a good amount of time for me (being from a so-called middle class family) to digest the news, what is wrong here? It's quite legal. It's good, as government gets more tax. But, had this 'extravagant' usage of electricity made a small scarcity of electricity in Mumbai resulting an increase of Ps 1 per kWh in that area, then those people would have forced to pay that extrafacultaprecium of Ps 1 per every kWh of electricity they used.
Is it not scary? Any extravagant usage of a resource adds an extra cost to thousands of poor people around us! And even that extrafacultaprecium gets added to my next purchase of the same resource! The more frightening fact is that it happens everywhere by everybody on every resource. When people predict that world war III is for water, never ever neglect our contribution to that war!
Next time when you go to bed without putting off your toilet light,or when you illuminate stars and serials in your home, or as you pour milk down into your deity, remember that you are so cruel to impose extrafacultaprecium on us!
What is extrafacultaprecium? Etymologically speaking, extrafacultaprecium ('ex prodigis usus resource sumptus est') is nothing but the cost from extravagant usage of resource. In simple terms, it's the extra cost incurred for a resource due to somebody's extravagant usage of it.
To understand this term better, we need to brush up our memory of fundamental economic concepts and their relation: supply, scarcity, demand and cost. This terminology can be defined as below (may not be economically accurate though).
Supply is the total amount of a specific good or service (referred here to resource) that is available to consumers. Scarcity, on the contrary, is the condition that exists when there are not enough resources to satisfy all the wants of individuals or society.
Demand can be defined as the consumer's desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service, whereas the amount that has to be paid or given up in order to get the good or service is called cost.
From all the definitions and our common sense (if we share one), we can safely assume that the more the demand, the more the supply. And therefore, in case of natural resources (unlike services) which is limited or fixed in nature, the more the supply, the more the scarcity. And defenitely, the more the scarcity, the more the cost.
What does this imply? To make it plain, the more we use a resource, the less it's available, thus the more it costs.
Can't you go for an alternative in this case? For many a reason, it can not be plausible. Few are unavailability of choice, opportunity cost (the next highest valued alternative that is given up when a choice is made) and so on.
So far, we were looking at how the more use of a resource can lead to higher cost for the same resource. Neverthless, to understand our new term, we need to diferentiate between mere usage of a resource and extravagant usage of it.
What is the extravagant usage of a resource? Of course, it's relative. The amount (unit) of usage has nothing to do with extravagance. For instance, the amount of water being used in an appartment will defenitely be more than that of in a small household.
Then waht does really constitute extravagance of usage? With any common economical sense, we can very well say that mere usage is that of need, whereas extravagant usage is that of want. Again you can argue that need and want are relative. One's want can be somebody else's need.
However, the Google guru clearly explains that the idea of survival is real, meaning someone would die without their needs being met, whereas a want is one step up in the order from needs and is simply something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain.
By now, if we are clear of need (mere usage of resource) and want (extravagant usage of resource), it's time to revisit our newly coined term, extrafacultaprecium. It denotes the additional cost incurred for a resource by one, due to somebody else's extravagant usage of it. For example, in a hypothetical situation, a litre of petrol costs Rs 100. And imagine I used 1000 litres of petrol extravagantly, which made a small scarcity of petrol resulting an increase of Rs 1 per litre. Now the price of one litre petrol, when you go and buy, is Rs 101. Here the Rs 1 that you pay extra for a litre of petrol, just because of my extravagant usage, is called extrafacultaprecium.
Really? This phenomenon of extrafacultaprecium is true? It is very much true, if you are able to differentiate between need and want. Though the extra cost is not something taht can statistically be derived (at least for an economical ignorant like me), it is very much logical. It looks very much a common sense to me.
Now, if it is so? Am I not entitled for my want? It's my hard-earned money that I spend. An article in Times of India (dated Nov 25, 2010) was talking about Mukesh Ambani's first power bill in his godzilla-sized home, Antilia. The house with five members had generated a power bill of Rs 70,69,488 in a month. Though it takes a good amount of time for me (being from a so-called middle class family) to digest the news, what is wrong here? It's quite legal. It's good, as government gets more tax. But, had this 'extravagant' usage of electricity made a small scarcity of electricity in Mumbai resulting an increase of Ps 1 per kWh in that area, then those people would have forced to pay that extrafacultaprecium of Ps 1 per every kWh of electricity they used.
Is it not scary? Any extravagant usage of a resource adds an extra cost to thousands of poor people around us! And even that extrafacultaprecium gets added to my next purchase of the same resource! The more frightening fact is that it happens everywhere by everybody on every resource. When people predict that world war III is for water, never ever neglect our contribution to that war!
Next time when you go to bed without putting off your toilet light,or when you illuminate stars and serials in your home, or as you pour milk down into your deity, remember that you are so cruel to impose extrafacultaprecium on us!
Saturday, August 19, 2017
പ്രാർത്ഥന കേൾക്കാത്ത ദൈവം!
തന്റെ സ്കൂട്ടിയെ തട്ടി തട്ടിയില്ല എന്ന മട്ടിൽ ചീറിപ്പാഞ്ഞ പൾസർലെ ആ യുവാവിനെ നോക്കി അവൾ പ്രാർത്ഥിച്ചു, ഈ യാത്രയിൽ നാം ഇനി കണ്ടുമുട്ടാതിരിക്കട്ടെ. പക്ഷെ, ദൈവം അവളുടെ പ്രാർത്ഥന കേട്ടില്ല; ആൾക്കൂട്ടത്തിനിടയിലൂടെ ആ കണ്ടുമുട്ടൽ അതിഭയാനകമായിരുന്നു.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
Non-Human-Being-Illumination
What is non-human-being-illumination? Why is it so special
when human-being-illumination happens as well?
It being abundantly-loaded term and I being ‘nonmath’ software
architect, it’s a vice of commission and omission from my side to claim to coin
the term non-human-being-illumination (if not coined yet).
However, let me start by stating a word of etymological
caution that the term ‘being’ here has got no epistemological connotation. The word
‘being’ simply means animalia and non-human-being means animal in its normal
sense (exclusive of mankind). Now, by the term non-human-being-illumination, I mean
the phenomenon/process where/by which the non-human-beings acquire intelligence
quotient at least as equal as humans in ancient history.
Is this phenomenon real? To be frank, I haven’t done any
reading or research to substantiate it. What makes me believe it is my school
biology and mere observations (may be along with some poor reasoning). Being an
evolutionist, I’m bound to think that the so-called intelligent human beings
are originated from apes in animal kingdom. Therefore, if man becomes more
intelligent, so are the animals. In case you are a creationist, we need to debate
separately. Moreover, I don’t really want to get into the metamorphoses of
human and animal souls or minds, as it defeats our purpose. Nevertheless I must
say one thing: if there is a soul or mind in us, it’s in our brain, not in our
heart or anywhere else. The fact is that animals are becoming more and more
intelligent. I’d seen crow nest built of iron bars and threads (I didn’t mean
they melt the metal out of its ore, but they learned how to bend and arrange
them). Conversely, they have got their own innate limitation to break the cell.
But they do here and there without our notice (or may be with our negligence). As
a matter of fact, I can list out a numerous observations to illustrate the
theory of animal illuminists. The evident sign of non-human-being-illumination is
that the animals started breaking their patterns. The main difference between
human and non-human beings, for me, was free thinking. Man was able to break the
patterns created by ancestors. I feel (not fear) that animals started showing
the signs. I can, therefore, safely reason out that it’s quite becoming
phenomenon.
Can these signs point us to a complete illumination? To be
precise, I have no reason to agree or disagree. If my memory is right, the
mother earth is livable just for some (~ 5 to 20) billion years
(referring to scientific calculation, not religiously predicted apocalyptic
events). I can’t foresee with current knowledge, if complete non-human-being-illumination
is possible in this short period. Even if it’s achieved, I fear human intelligence
quotient will be way above to recognize or appreciate the non-human-being-illumination.
Okay, albeit it’s completely realized, what difference does
it make? Believe me, it’s a lot, good or bad! First one that comes to my mind
is that there would be no tamed animals in our houses (if we have one at that
time). It might not be required then, as humans would be living on capsules and
sheltering in space. When the animal illuminists break the pattern (like
humans), that could be called unnatural. Is it not scary? But I’m horrified by
another thought. If a single species called human being can bring such changes
(good and bad) to the world, what could thousands of species put forth? No wonder,
it’s the end of the world!
Friday, April 29, 2016
ജീവിത കാഴ്ചകൾ
ജീവിതം മാധ്യവയസ്കന്റെ താടി പോലെയാണ് ; എത്ര നല്ല ഗുണങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടെങ്ങിലും ഒന്ന് രണ്ട് നരകൾ മാത്രമേ ആളുകളുടെ കണ്ണിൽ പെടുകയുള്ള്ു .
Friday, February 5, 2016
What is the value of a bottle of water?
“What is the
tastiest food in the world?”, asked Thomas master. That was how he was always.
He would post some questions to get the whole attention of the class. It’s needless
to say he badly wanted such a question in that Friday last period to agitate
the students.
7B got animated!
“With prawn roast, I
can eat a pot of rice…”, everyone chuckled for Johnny Mathan’s answer.
“Sambar is the best
curry in the world”, Siddhu, son of Appaswami, had no doubt about it.
“Mutton Chops”
“Appam with Chicken”
“Rasam”
“Curd Curry”
Christina was describing
about lobster that nobody knew about.
“Tomato Curry”
“Fish Milk Curry”
“Chicken Biryani”
“Choclate…”
Known and unknown
aroma of tempting tastes invaded their senses, making their mouth water.
“Tell me Radha…?”, master
pointed at pappat maker Santhamma’s son, Radhakrishnan, mockingly or tenderly
called ‘Pappat’. He was poor but good at studies.
With heavy eyes, for
helping his mother the previous night, he stood up. All those indolent eyes
were on him. He looked straight at the eyes of the master and said without any rush.
“Hungry, Master…”
“Hungry is the
tastiest food in the world!”
For a second, Thomas
master was thunderstruck. He raised his hands to his spectacles…
Those words made no
sense to those students. So was I.
Having hailed from
the outskirts of a village in Kerala, I had never thought that a bottle of
water had any value. Neither in the sophisticated life of Chicago did I. Even
when I paid Rs 50 for a small bottle of water in Bangalore, it didn’t really
mean to me anything. Perhaps, because my company is paying me more than that
for the 15 minutes that I play table tennis.
But, in the midst of
a very delicious potluck luncheon, the award winning picture of the African
child and vulture flashed in my eyes. And popped up a question. What is the
value of a bottle of water?
It may have no value
for me. Or maybe just Rs 50.
But, it’s different
for that child, for whom the hungry vulture waited for.
I think the value of
a bottle of water for him is HIS LIFE.
I saw a lot of lives
in the waste basket, after the potluck.
It also made me deep
dive into some definitions.
What is food?
My Google guru said,
“Any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink, or that plants
absorb in order to maintain life and growth”. And it’s very evident that food
is for our growth.
What are the
attributes of food?
My common sense says
there are mainly two. All others can be grouped into these two, I believe. And they
are:
Healthy! Tasty!
The very definition
of food explains and it’s very evident that food is to be healthy. It needs no elucidation.
We all know how
important the food is to be tasty too. Some people love eating food. Some others
love to prepare and feed others. Whatever it is, taste is something indispensable
and uncompromisable.
What do we pay the
food for?
Obviously, it’s for
health. But, mostly and unfortunately, it’s for taste. Don’t yell at me, if you
are a health conscious foodie. All I meant is that the food we take is this
expensive, mainly for its taste. Again are you not happy? Let me put it this
way. Typically, taste adds complexity (good or bad) to the food we intake.
If I’m right in
reasoning, my next question makes sense to you.
Should we really account
for taste?
As per Wikipedia,
taste is defined as the sensation produced when a substance in the mouth reacts
chemically with taste receptor cells located on taste buds.
That means that you can
taste any delicious food in the world, only for a minute (if you are a slow
eater like me). Once the food is down to the taste buds in your tongue, it
makes no sense to you. All that you feel after that is just trick of your brain.
Yes, this little thing cheats us every now and then.
Now, should we
really pay for taste?
Again, the answer is
very personal. No.
However, I can add
another dimension to it, why my answer is a ‘No’.
Health is objective,
whereas taste is subjective.
You can objectively
measure your health, thanks to latest science. On the other hand, taste is
individual. For few at least, even the bitter gourd is also tasty. It also
means that you can train yourself to make any food tasty, up to a good extend.
No offence to
foodies! It’s just a loud thinking. Everything is subjective.
But there is
something nobody disagrees, at least. The value of a bottle of water is not
just Rs 50. It could be a life too!
Let’s not waste
food!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)