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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-24 02:36:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:45:11 +0200 Message-ID: <6jm2nv86sjlodss01sfvikv38jbilkusl7@4ax.com> References: <6roimvg39s8h5ba64u9pn0trsa4d3u4kai@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1064396204 5112689 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42847 Date: 2003-09-24T11:45:11+02:00 List-Id: On 23 Sep 2003 19:52:06 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Oh, I observed many children. As a rule, they prefer McDonald's to >> normal food, Milka/Snickers to good chocolate, coca-cola to other >> drinks. > >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. >> 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! >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. Half-baked design is a result of half-baked programmes and uneducated managers. This is mostly because of the amount of projects developed in C++. Should Ada be used instead, by same programmers led by same managers, the result would be much same. The adavantages of Ada appears at a definite level of competence, and only when extensive methods of software development are replaced by intensive ones. >>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". (:-)) >> >> >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. >And note that Western (educated) public admired Orwell's >"1984" not just because of some analogies with Stalinism. They welcomed Stalin and recently Saddam. Sort of weakness for tyrants with moustache ... >> > - by state or corporate >> >secrecy/security rules, copyright or patent laws (don't forget that copyright >> >and patent rights may be sold and bought). >> >> Copyright on knowledge, what is that? You can probably patent 2+2=4, >> but how can you prevent me from using this knowledge? I mean to build >> an *effective* legal system protecting such patents? How to prove that >> i=sqrt(-1) is based on 2+2=4? Imagine a court, where such case could >> be brought in! > >I can easily imagine such a court. All judges will be not only >graduated from well-known universities, but have Ph.D. also, and perhaps will be >members of some Academias. Sort of those flourishing now in Russia? If you mean *real* Academias, remember, that USSR Academia refused to expell Sakharov. True scientists are hard to manipulate. >No problem with that, and never been. (Yes, certainly >there will be dissidents also, of both kinds - persecuted and tolerated). > >> >In such a situation the real measure >> >of success is not carrying knowledge, but having rights and/or control of it. >> >Not much difference from money, I think. >> >> > There is a difference, you cannot control it without killing it. >> > Science is rooted in freedom. > >This is a popular slogan, no more. How much freedom had Copernicus? >Galileo? >Newton? Gauss? Fermat? They all had some, quite little freedom, and >apparently had no need for much more for their scientific purposes. Their personal freedom was not restricted. And they openly discussed the issues they wished. Galileo was charged *after* he published a work revolting the curch. In USSR he would be never able to do so. >Perhaps you mean not individual, but collective scientific efforts. >Well, for that some extended freedom is actually needed. Well, "Brave New World" >was quite scientific... As scientific as the communist theory was. >Collective activity can be controlled more easily than >individual one, As long as that activity is concetrated on digging ditches... >even some perception of a freedom may be retained without losing >control. I'd recommend you read Feinman memoirs about his work under strict [army] control in the atomic project. Well, generals didn't lose a perception of control ... >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. >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". >A stupid version of this idea was tried in exUSSR and failed >beautifully, long before the collapse of USSR (but nevertheless, it contributed to that >collapse). USA's approach is certainly much cleverer tactically, and much more >cautious - so, hopefully its future failure will be more graceful. (Just a remark >about relations between social architecture designs and requirements for >circutry base, not that much off-topic as it probably seems -;) . So far, it is Russia and EU which fail. --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de