in reply to Re^12: Reasons for Using Perl 6
in thread Reasons for Using Perl 6

Yeah, thanks, I have been in the business of data quality for a large financial application running in several different countries for long enough, I know very well how to make things look right, rounding first and then summing.

But that's precisely my point. Making the thing look right this way is likely to make the sum less accurate (especially when they insist at the same time on using rounding methods that will not even out rounding errors in a large sum and will tend on average to make the sum slightly larger than reality -- but that's a different story).

And that's exactly what I was saying about people in finance, accounting and audit departments: they want things to "look right" much more than they want the calculation to be accurate.

I can perfectly understand their concerns and I have no problem with these choices. It even happened at least two or three times that I was the one who suggested them the solution to round first and then sum, as a way to get exactly the look they wanted, but warning them at the same time that it would make the calculations less accurate. In at least one occasion, I even prepared a detailed spreadsheet showing what happened depending on where the rounding was made in a number of scenarios and pointing out that it would look right but be slightly inaccurate in a relatively significant percentage of the invoices (usually just one or two cents above the real amount). They were really unimpressed about lesser accuracy to put it mildly (in fact they didn't give a sh*t about it) and they jumped on the solution that looked right.

So, again, I am not criticizing their choices, but, contrary to what has been said by another monk before, these people should hardly be given as an example of rigor and accuracy.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: Reasons for Using Perl 6
by Anonymous Monk on Jan 04, 2018 at 23:22 UTC
    I'm disappointed to see that you've changed your mind and once again want to discuss this with me. So I'm just going to quote you a passage from the Tao of Programming, chapter 3.3, and if you don't like it you can go back to not talking to me again.
    There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?"

    "An operating system," replied the programmer.

    The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said.

    "Not so," said the programmer, "when designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design."

    The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?"

    The programmer made no reply.

[reply]
      I'm disappointed to see that you've changed your mind and once again want to discuss this with me.
      Oh, I'm really sorry about that, please apologize, I did not know you were the same Anonymous Monk as the other Anonymous Monk in the other part of the thread. There are so many AnoMonks around here. BTW, that's one of the reasons I am not keen on debating with Anonymous Monk, you just never know if you're speaking with the same individual. Any other person could step in and pretend to be you.

      If you're so keen on debating here, why don't you simply register?

      Or perhaps you're already registered and are a well known monk here, but just want to hide your identity? Who knows?

      Or, may be, you're not the same Anonymous Monk, but just claim to be him or her? No way to know.

      Whichever way, I am not sure that hiding one's own identity this way is very courageous. And that another reason I don't like too much to argue with Anonymous Monk.

      But, I know, this is one of the rules on this site, so be it, I won't complain further about it.

      My last point is to notice that you sidestepped the content of my last answer. I can only guess that you understood that I was right, but did not want to admit it. Thank you for that. ;-)

      BTW, I could also log anonymously on this site and pretend to be you, and make you look silly, or have you accept everything I said before. But I will not do that. That's not the kind of things I do.

[reply]
      A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom