Great professor, great lectures. I took every lecture he offered.
My best memory is when he asked me questions in an oral exam that weren't totally foreign, but... somehow off the expected path. He never asked many questions whose answers were right in the lecture notes, always probing whether you had understood the concepts, so I assumed he was particularly demanding that day. When I came back into the room to get my grade, he told me that his TA had informed him that he was examining a different lecture than he was supposed to, and that he was quite impressed how I held myself up. The grade was accordingly chosen. :-)
EDIT to add: Not just on a committee but helped write the Ada 2012 reference with Tucker Taft and some others. Too bad they're fans of paywalled and non-FOSS work. A lot of this will disappear into ancient history because of it. Least we got a great RT book. :)
Moreover, bikeshedding is not a term from technical ground, but from
psychology. It talks about what people want instead of how computer system
In Parkinson's original and fictional example, members of an organisation give disproportionate weight to trivial issues. This is not a matter of sequence or independence. With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight.
Parkinson himself is a historian and not a psychologist.
But it's a matter of psychology of the organization members, not
a technical issue. On the other hand, priority inversion is purely technical
And then, the reactor could easily be built without bike shed finished. The
two tasks are independent. Inversion of priorities happens precisely because
the high priority task cannot be finished without the low priority task.
Thus, both the field the term operates on and the term's mechanics are
> With respect to similarity, I will equate priority and weight.
And that's about the only aspect of the two terms that is similar. Both talk
about two objects with vastly different (nominal) importance.