Re: signature like constructions

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

On 11 Aug 2003 07:59:12 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander
Kopilovitch) wrote:

>>>> allowing to implement "everything [problem] in anything [language]".
>>>
>>>No, this is too inexact statement: even 3 decades ago it was not possible
>>>to implement real-time control program in RPG language. So, not in "anything",
>>>but in "any universal language" - and with this more precise wording the
>>>statement becomes trivially true.
>>
>>What we count for "universal" is changing, depending on which problems
>>are of "universal" concern.
>
>Not so conformistic, I think. Perhaps you underestimate the generality and
>deepness of the works of logicians and "founding fathers" of programming
>(like Turing and other great names). I can agree that all their stuff may
>seem somehow "basic only" at first sight, but this impression will quickly
>fade and disappear if you try to make an alternative yourself.

These basics are not concern. Compare this with the basics of
mathematics. There are lot of problems with that, yet 99.9% of people
using mathematics just do not care. Not because they are ignorant.
They have other problems to solve.

>>I give you a funny example. One student was unable to tell me how to
>>calculate a distance between two points in cartesian co-ordinates! He
>>naturally knew nothing about Euclidean distance, space etc. Now the
>>most amazing thing. This student had successfuly modified a
>>3D-simulation program in OpenGL! (:-))
>
>No problem with that. Well, for a native English speaker the spoken language
>appears before the written language, but for foreigner the sequence is usually
>reverse. (For example. because of this I can communicate in written English
>-- well, with many errors, but still usually succesfully -- but I can't say so
>about my spoken English. So, an "phonetically illiterate" foreigner differs
>radically from an illiterate native speaker -:) .
>
>So for that you student. While for us the Euclidean distance appeared before
>3D-simulation and OpenGL, for that student the sequence is opposite -- surely,
>if he will continue his works with 3D-simulation and OpenGL, he inevitably
>will learn about Euclidean distance, sooner or later.

I think that the analogy is invalid. OpenGL cannot supersede analytic
geometry. I would say that one can play an electic piano, knowing
nothing about electricity.

>>It is a catastrophe, would you say. Yes, but it is also a triumph of
>>software developing tools.
>
>No more than public success of some good book on cooking is a catastrophe for
>biochemisrty -:)

To me it is a disaster. I understand Rober Eachus, how can someone
write a program without any understanding of the underlying problem?
In fact, one can and will. That's the dawn of an industrial age of
programming. (:-()

>> Let me foretell that new generations of
>>programmes will even know nothing about arithmetics! (:-))
>
>Well, there was a short novel about exactly that, by famous science fiction
>writer Isaac Asimov. In fact, that was probably the first Asimov's novel
>published in Soviet Union (in early sixties, I think), and it immediately made
>Asimov well-known in Soviet scientific circles (at least among physicists).
>In that novel, in far future the Earth is involved in endless war with another
>civilization; on both sides humans forgot arithmetics long ago, and the war is
>totally computerized; the problem is that the computers on both sides appeared
>"synchronized" -- they develop and upgrade themselves at the same speed, so
>nobody can win, and the war can't go to the end. The hero of the novel re-invents
>arithmetics from scratch, and the President becomes happy with new perspective
>-- to escape the deadlock and defeat the enemy using this non-conventional way.

Happy end. (:-)) But the true story is that re-invented arithmetics
did not help them. See Matrix movie paraphrasing the anecdote about
Sergeant and banana - all problems can solved merely by jumping higher
than others could. (:-))

>>>What we will unable to maintain will certainly crash. And we will not make
>>>such too complex software any more (after several attempts with sound failures).
>>
>>This will stop nobody. There are much worse things people are doing,
>>being well aware of the consequences.
>
>Well, than it will crash. Don't worry -;) , just don't stay under it -:)

Exactly! (:-))

>>>That's simple. Just the same reasons as for not to build a 100km-high tower.
>>
>>That tower is already built. Its name is internet! (:-))
>
>Why do you think so?

It is an example of how a very bad technology could serve a great
purpose. Just because of its size it could take years to collapse.
Like in the old Roman empire, generations may come and go and not
notice that it falls.

> Do you think the same about radio, TV, phones? Perhaps
>you were too much impressed by unprecedented freedom in Internet... well this
>time is almost over, the freedom in Internet will surely decrease to a normal
>level quite soon (although not so much as some governments dream now -- thanks
>China -:).

Thanks to RIAA! I can expect communists fighting freedom of speech,
but Mickey Mouse? Indeed, history repeats twice ...

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