Re: Communications of ACM: Sir, Please Step Away from the ASR-33!

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 28.12.10 17:26, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

>> OTOH, using a notation that provides for any kind of
>> message sent will ipso facto express message sending
>> regardless of implementation (of message sending).
>> Using source templates controlled by a programmer,
>> the model can be mapped to a specific implementation
>> (of message sending).
> 
> So simple? No multicast, unicast, acknowledges, QoS, synchronization,
> routing, balanced load, naming and browsing services,
> connection/disconnection, marshaling, peers, retries, frames and windows,
> state transitions.
> 
> Send a message - done! Do you really believe in THIS?

Absolutely.  Understanding the model will not require
that the model itself provides the fundament of human
understanding.  Whenever the expression
    "Send a message - done!"
answers a question about the functioning of a system,
then indeed, done!

The two teams that Simon has mentioned should
be able to communicate meaningfully this way. For
example, sometimes it is "understood" (borrowing math
speak) what sending a message means, given some architecture.

If more detail is needed, it is up to the model makers
and programmers to agree on a useful rule regarding
specification en detail.