Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 24 Sep 2003 19:51:34 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander
Kopilovitch) wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> >I guess they have no (or little) choice: the environment matters more
>> >than a food. Give them to choose between standard McDonals food and normal
>> >food, but in exactly the same environment, and do that several times - and
>> >then observe what they choose.
>>
>> I did. I have many friends with children and most of them tried. Many
>> of them did it hard. No success.
>
>Probably they weren't aware of experintation technique. I guess they simply
>tried to achieve an aim, not to discover significant factors, relations, and
>stable system states. In particular, I suspect that they did not provide
>equivalent external (for a food) conditions (spatial, temporal and mindset).

And a belt as an external condition (:-))

>> >> Compare it with software developers, which definetely prefer
>> >> C++ and Java to Ada. You can spend all your life trying to explain
>> >> them that McDonald's or C++ is bad, but they still will. Reflexes are
>> >> stronger than any explanations.
>> >
>> >Reflexes don't matter here. The situation is indeed somehow similar to
>> >the McDonalds and children: an environment matters more then a food, and
>> >there is usually little or no choice. Besides all that things like
>> >availability, familiarity, costs etc.,
>>
>>Children known no such words. They just yell - mum, I want Donald's!
>
>But there are parents who should know these words; children's knowledge is
>irrelevant for meta-issues, children never operate at meta-level.

Yep, they operate a reflex basis.

>> >there is a fundamental obstacle: Ada presumes
>> >full and thorough design, while neither C++ nor Java don't. You can build
>> >some half-prototype/half-product in C++ or Java, and hope to complete
>> >(somehow) the rest of design and then the real application later. But it will be
>> >much more difficult to follow that way in Ada.
>>
>> Why? Ada cannot prevent "C++ design". Also C++ does not enforce it
>> that much.
>
>Certainly Ada cannot prevent, and C++ does not enforce anything. The difference
>is in what is presumed in language design and to which degree. If you follow
>the language design assumptions then the language's design trade-offs will work
>for you; otherwise they will work against you, and you will spend much effort
>for overcoming various obstacles and will suffer from various inconveniences.

Right, but the language design assumtions do not influence the
software design approach in a direct way. I do not see why it should
be more difficult to make incomplete products in Ada.

>> Half-baked design is a result of half-baked programmes and uneducated
>> managers.
>
>I think, no. It is most often a result of substantially incomplete problem
>statement and incompetence (of the team) in problem domain.

These are the consequences. An uneducated manager is incompetent in
any problem domain, except for organizing useless meetings. More
uneducated he and his team are, more global problems they challenge.

>> The adavantages of Ada
>> appears at a definite level of competence, and only when extensive
>> methods of software development are replaced by intensive ones.
>
>I do not think that most of advantages of Ada are related to the skills in
>software development. I believe that they are related to compentence in problem
>domain. (But if the problem domain itself is the software development then
>well, the software development skills are naturally most significant in the case.)

The point was that to see any difference beteen an axe and a razor,
one should stop cutting the lawn and try to have a shave ...

>> >>Training is essential in understanding music.
>> >
>> >Generally, no. Good popular music do not (and should not) require any
>> >special training.
>>
>> I meant rather simple things. For instance, "don't chew, when you hear
>> music". (:-))
>
>I tend to disagree with this rule in the form it was presented.  I think that
>a proper rule should mention not music in general, but specific circumstances,
>which involves other people. Well, I have no habit of chewing, but I certainly
>want an opportunity to hear music in my kitchen, drinking coffee and smoking.

There are simple physical reasons of human ear construction behind
this rule. (:-))

>> >> >> >Given current circumstances regarding intellectual property, I can't resist
>> >> >> >to ask question: if knowledge, rather than money, is a measure of success,
>> >> >> >doesn't this mean that knowledge became a property in that science-oriented
>> >> >> >society? -;)
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> In my dilettantish opinion, there is a difference, knowledge is
>> >> >> difficult to separate from its carrier.
>> >> >
>> >> >But a carrier can be severely restricted (if not imprisoned... or even killed
>> >> >after he shared his knowledge with another person)
>> >>
>> >> It would be too expensive. If you mean Stalin's methods, remeber that
>> >> he was looting the potential built before him.
>> >
>> >So what? You certainly can't say that we have (or will have) too
>> >little potential for looting.
>>
>> Yet, it gone and the empire collapsed.
>
>Yes, so what? Why not to repeat? Final collapse doesn't matter, it will be
>somewhere in future and perhaps another generation will deal with it.

Because the stock is empty now.

>> >And note that Western (educated) public admired Orwell's
>> >"1984" not just because of some analogies with Stalinism.
>>
>> They welcomed Stalin
>
>What? Are you implying that they also welcomed Franco and Mussolini?

Mussolini had no moustache.

>Do you think that they dream that tomorrow Stalin or an equivalent will rule in their
>own countries?

Probably yes.

>> and recently Saddam.
>
>We certainly read different BBCs. I am not aware of those educated Western
>people who welcomed Saddam.

Maybe "welcome" was a wrong word. But BBC World always tried to
represent Saddam and US as morally equivalent sides. They promptly
passed Saddam's propaganda without any analysis or comments.

>But at the same time I know that many people
>were and are very dissatisfied with obvious lies of their governments about
>the reasons for the recent war action. Notice, that the problem is not much
>in the war action itself, but in that the possible true and valid reasons were
>substitued by obvious lies.

Which appeared to be the single possible way. Whom to blaim?

>> Sort of weakness for tyrants with moustache ...
>
>Drop that stupid myth about moustache, better view an excellent documentary
>film "Triumph of Will" ("Triumph Des Willens", Leni Riefenstahl, 1935).

I find it neither excellent nor documentary. Yes, Leni influenced the
modern body lotion commercials. This is her place in the history of
art.

>Even in that film you will see that there was much more than moustache.

To be like others, to share everything with others, to vibrate with
others in an extatic "consensus"...

>> If you mean *real* Academias,
>> remember, that USSR Academia refused to expell Sakharov.
>
>Don't overestimate that story. Remember, that Sakharov was very special case
>for Communist authorities because of its supposed role in development of
>Soviet nuclear weapon.

Huh, Trotzky's role in grounding Soviet Army didn't save him from
ice-axe. 

>> True scientists are hard to manipulate.
>
>Well, perhaps sometimes this true. Although history says nothing definite on
>this matter. Anyway, the numbers of true scientists always are rather small,
>so it does not help.

So the court we are talking about were incompetent. That's the point.

>> >One serious problem of our time is that USA, being the Land of Engineers,
>> >can't agree with that science and engineering aren't the same, and
>> >consistently tries to convert science to engineering.
>>
>> Egh? How so. In my view USA is the last hope of humankind.
>
>Well, there were episodes in recent century when USA was indeed the last hope
>of our sort of civilization, and USA fulfilled that hope. And that may be
>repeated once more, who knows. But that does not imply that particular serious
>problems can't be originated and developed in USA. And that does not imply
>that all people outside USA should be hopeful spectators only.

At least, they could stop accusing America in the faults of their own!

>> >And with huge influence from
>> >USA this becomes influental tendency worldwide. They want to "do math", then
>> >they will want to "do physics", "do biology" etc, An attempt to achieve harmony
>> >between "do" and "think" inside an individual, as a standard (for educated
>> >people).
>
>> All is better than "do money".
>
>No. It is worse. Because money is just ephemerical criteria, just commonly
>agreed abstract notion, just place and role in the social system, and not a
>way of perception of fundamental things and processes. Money is entirely human
>and even entirely social matter, it exists only inside and because of human
>civilization - so, one almost never can just "make money" - as a rule, he must
>understand and do something other for that. So, money is just intermediate
>entity, which generally doesn't isolate people from reality.

While doing mathematics isolates? Actually money were invented to
isolate reality. To exchange something real for something having only
an imaginary value.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de