And don’t EVER make the mistake that you can design something better than what you get from ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a feedback cycle. That’s giving your intelligence much too much credit.
a program is like a poem: you cannot write a poem without writing it. Yet people talk about programming as if it were a production process and measure “programmer productivity”in terms of “number of lines of code produced”.In so doing they book that number on the wrong side of the ledger: We should always refer to”the number of lines of code spent”.
it’s an old observation that in order to be useful hypothesis has to be falsifiable. Similar principle applies to design proposals – to be worth of any attention they have to be detailed enough to allow meaningful criticism. What you have done so far is equivalent to coming to a hospital and saying “aseptic good, infection bad”. That would get pretty much the same reactions, varying from “yes, we know” to “do you have any specific suggestions?” and “stop wasting our time”. In short: get lost and do not come back until you have something less vague.  If you are insistent enough, you might also earn a free referral to psychiatrist.
These are some of the types of problems engineers at REAL software shops have to solve to be able to ship REAL product for REAL money. If you haven’t HAD to produce code like this yourself at some point in your carrier then you’ve lived a sheltered life. Its disingenuous for you to get on your ivory tower to point and laugh. Well, you see, after spending years cleaning up the excrements of self-styled “REAL engineers” it’s either get on the tower to point and laugh or get on the tower to point and shoot.
‘Layered approach’ is not a magic incantation to excuse any bit of snake oil. Homeopathic remedies might not harm (pure water is pure water), but that’s not an excuse for quackery. And frankly, most of the ‘security improvement’ crowd sound exactly like woo-peddlers.
uriel: When I read “OMG (Object Management Group)” I think “Oh My God!”. gobongo: Fitting because whenever someone suggests I use UML I think “Oh My God (is this guy on crack?)!”. There’s nothing in computing that can’t be broken by another level of indirection.
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. The inverse proposition also appears to be true: A complex system designed from scratch never works and cannot be made to work.