From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Loryn Jenkins Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/05 Message-ID: <35F0B5B0.8E2D0166@s054.aone.net.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 388062610 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sgror$je8$3@news.indigo.ie> <6sh3qn$9p2$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6shbca$66c$1@news.indigo.ie> <6shhq7$lut$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sjbso$1lk$2@news.indigo.ie> <6sjijg$36r$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6skhcm$1dr$2@news.indigo.ie> <6skqf3$9g0$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f1f9fe.9111641@news.erols.com> <35f23ce2.7649859@news.erols.com> <6snn1b$c90$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35ef7dff.24318728@news.erols.com> <6sor5t$5i8$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35F06B0C.F27D7513@s054.aone.net.au> <35f07709.88072681@news.erols.com> X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.mel.aone.net.au 904967643 4959 203.12.186.163 (5 Sep 1998 03:54:03 GMT) Organization: TekRite Pty Ltd Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: loryn@acm.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Sep 1998 03:54:03 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-05T03:54:03+00:00 List-Id: Ell wrote: > > Loryn Jenkins wrote: > > >> Then clearly you have not read much of Dijkstra. The citation you want is > >> the citation I have given you many many times. Go look it up Elliott. > > >Yes, look it up. Read it. Acknowledge that that is what Dijkstra was > >saying. > > How can I acknowledge that, if I haven't seen it? And you all can't > point to that stuff on flowcharting as some kind of proof that the > founders of SP said we should adhere to se/se. > > >Remember, you *may* disagree with him. But it is silly not reading what > >he actually said. > > That book is out of print and RCM knows it. That's what libraries are for. > If RCM had *any* shred of > text to prove that they explicitly advocated se/se in structured > coding he would quote it. A charitable interpretation of what they have already quoted has demonstrated that. But leave that aside. Let us say that many people who have read the book have made that interpretation. It is certainly possible for you to claim that no, se/se is not what Dijkstra was going on about, he was really using se/se as a tool to demonstrate that, say, code should be provable. And it is the provability of code that is the foundation of structured programming. This may or may not be correct. But it is an acceptable line of argument. But an even better line of argument may in fact be, yes, Dijkstra does believe in se/se. But what he should have been concentrating on was, say, provability. > > > And it is fantasy arguing that he wasn't discussing > >se/se. > > It's a deplorable attempt at deception for RCM to state that se/se is > a cornerstone of SP without a shred of evidence. How about, 'a cornerstone of SP as advocated by Dijkstra'. (That doesn't necessarily mean he was right; that doesn't necessarily mean that it is today, in fact, the basis for SP (as practised by the majority of practitioners.) It merely means that he advocated it. (And, I think, it would be incorrect to debate that his view has influenced many people. That is, it is an historical fact that his views have influenced many people (other than RCM ... take BM as an example) about the use of se/se. > > It's fantastic gullibility to think RCM is right about se/se without a > shred of evidence; What evidence? A quotation? Hah. That's not proof that se/se is right. That's only proof that it is an historical fact Dijkstra argued for se/se. Whether se/se is right is another matter entirely. > to believe him based on faith, because I'll bet > dollars to doughnuts that you can't show me any proof either. Like you, I don't have the book at hand. But RCM's claims of Dijkstra's position seems 'right' to me (based on triangulating what I've read of many other people who've read Dijkstra). Loryn Jenkins