As Pragmatic Programmers, our base material isn’t wood or iron, it’s knowl-edge. We gather requirements as knowledge, and then express that knowledgein our designs, implementations, tests, and documents. And we believe thatthe best format for storing knowledge persistently is plain text. With plaintext, we give ourselves the ability to manipulate knowledge, both manuallyand programmatically, using virtually every tool at our disposal.

When is eval justified? In pragmatic terms, when you say it is. If it's your program and you're the programmer, you set the parameters.

The "validity" such an argument has(if that is the right word) is presumptive and provisional in nature.5 It is frail, andsubject to default.Even so, such presumptively based arguments can be very useful and important in cases where action must be taken, but firm evidence is not presently available. Examples would be in planning, where the future holds many uncertainties,or in practical deliberation, where prudent action often requires acting on provisional hunches and guesswork, always subject to revision, as better informationcomes in.

Pragmatic

Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (ordecreasing) the acceptability of a controversial standpoint for the listener or reader

If a speaker presents an argument to an audience, in which he asserts and defendsthe conclusion by appeal to the premises, I call this activity argumentation.

The most important guideline to give is the following: Write clean unit tests if there is actual value in testing a complex piece of logic in isolation to prevent it from breaking in the future Otherwise, try to write your specs as close to the user’s flow as possible

It is about balancing the twin needs of writing good software, and writing any software at all.

The Unix Philosophy is an ideology of pragmatism.

free market argument. The belief that the emergence of such institutions requires deliberate planning amounts to the pragmatic free market argument. The requisite institutions have to be created by the visible hand of government.

We have thus an example in which the hand behind the invisible hand is visible, in line, therefore, with Mittermaier’s presentation of the pragmatic view in which humans deliberately decide upon an institutional framework within which an invisible hand is supposed to operate. If, however, we were to argue that the appropriate institutional arrangements would have emerged of their own accord, in other words without such planning, Mittermaier would classify us among the ranks of the dogmatic free marketeers. For a dogmatic free marketeer, the hand behind the invisible hand is also invisible.

Two hands appear in Mittermaier’s title and at least one is invisible. Is the other also invisible? By considering answers to the question, Mittermaier classifies a stance on the free market as either dogmatic or pragmatic.

Mittermaier asks the question, does the institutional setup also emerge spontaneously via an invisible hand? As the 1996 watershed year specification makes clear, a decision was made to insist on arrangements deliberated upon with an idea to prevent chaos. In other words, in terms of Mittermaier’s argument we could say that in the case of the Burning Man event, the hand behind the invisible hand is visible, which amounts to a pragmatic rather than a dogmatic stance on the emergence of the institutions involved.

It was only pragmatic to use a tool that basically gives you that all for free.

loss of Silesia

Though not always legally required, terms & conditions (also called ToS – terms of service, terms of use, or EULA – end user license agreement) are pragmatically required

Dave Thomas

Critics have been uncomfortable with liberalism’s conception of law as rights, contending that liberals establish the rights of individuals without regard for the good of society. Liberals, it is said, think of individual rights as pre-political. Thus the modern conception of human rights is dissociated from the aims of society, resulting in a separation between rights and responsibilities. The liberal conception can justify rights against society, but it cannot justify obligations to the public realm. From this, critics charge, follows the decadence of modernity: public morality, social responsibility, even the motivational foundation for public democratic action must be sacrificed at the altar of the liberal conception of human rights.