Skip to main content

Blue sky vs applied research

So, one of the topics that has come up from time to time concerns so-called Blue-sky research versus applied research. The image of a blue sky research project is one of a researcher or small group of researchers having fun dreaming up some cool technology but with no relation to the real world.

I have always been a little uncomfortable with this distinction. The reasons are two-fold: in my experience, the time-scales associated with a project bear no direct relation to whether the research is 'blue sky' or 'applied'; secondly the actual work done in a research project may be incremental or grand in both blue sky and applied. (In fact, given the general reluctance of people to fund blue sky research, they tend to be smaller and less grand than applied projects.)

So, here is a different, more grounded distinction that, I believe, is more authentic: Bottom-up versus top-down research.

Bottom-up means, of course, exploring from what you have and seeing if there are any serendipitous opportunities that make them themselves apparent. By its nature, you cannot predict the outcome of bottom-up work, but someone has to have some kind of intuition.

Top-down means problem directed. In my book, that is enough to make it applied. You are trying to solve a problem.

The reality dimension (i.e., is the research realistic or not) shows up independently for either. Some bottom-up projects are highly realistic, other top-down projects are somewhat unrealistic.

Popular posts from this blog

Minimum Viable Product

When was the last time you complained about the food in a restaurant? I thought so. Most people will complain if they are offended by the quality or service; but if the food and/or service is just underwhelming then they won't complain, they will simply not return to the restaurant. The same applies to software products, or to products of any kind. You will only get negative feedback from customers if they care enough to make the effort. In the meantime you are both losing out on opportunities and failing your core professional obligation. Minimum Viable Product speaks to a desire to make your customers design your product for you. But, to me, it represents a combination of an implicit insult and negligence. The insult is implicit in the term minimum. The image is one of laziness and contempt: just throw some mud on the wall and see if it sticks. Who cares about whether it meets a real need, or whether the customer is actually served. The negligence is more subtle but, in the end,

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

In Praise of Crappy Code

Not all code needs to be perfect! This is pretty heretical thinking for a software engineer. The issue is simple: how do you go about developing software for a small fixed budget. Imagine that you have $500 to implement a solution to a problem. If you spend more than that you will never recoup the extra that you spent. This comes up a lot in systems integration scenarios and also in customization efforts. Someone wants you to 'tweak' an application that they are using; you know that no-one else would want that feature and that if you spend more than what the customer will pay you will end up losing money. From the customer's perspective, the common 'time and materials' approach to quoting for software development is a nightmare. Being able to offer a fixed price contract for a task is a big benefit for the customer. But, how much do you quote for? Too much and you scare the customer away. Too little and you lose money. This is where 'crappy code' com