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: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 10:47:25 +0200 Message-ID: <8fhe90du5vo81rpud5nap9fs8npclkb47q@4ax.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-meneldur.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.119) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083659581 608781 I 212.79.194.119 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:226 Date: 2004-05-04T10:47:25+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 4 May 2004 07:11:21 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich" wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> Engineering is a product of science. Without science it is called >> craftsmanship. > >With the same logic and in the same sense one can say that science (at least >natural science) is a product of engineering: Absolutely >physics is practically >indistinguishable from philosophy without engineered tools, as well as >chemistry from alchemy. Social sciences were also just a branches/aspects >of philosophy before they employed engineered tools (data processing tools). > >Actually one can consider science (at least modern science) as an engineering >in common mental space. > >And all that said, science and engineering are still entirely different >activities. Science is consciousness of engineering. >> >> > there are international organizations and national organization in various >> >> >countries (some of then actually are international - like ACM and IEEE) >> >> >dealing with software as well. What else you want? Are you participating in >> >> >at least one of those organizations? >> >> >> >> Can you remember the last time CNN mentioned IEEE in its news block? >> >> UN-bureaucrats are aired each day. >> > >> >So your understanding of democracy implies that any substantial influence, >> >even in complex scientific/technical matters, can be performed only by bodies, >> >of which general public is well aware through mass-media? >> >> Absolutely. To be prepared for concessions (science is an expensive >> thing) public has to be aware of what's going on. > >Great. Do you think that general public (in USA) was well aware of RAND >Corporation in 60th? Do you think those battalions of think tanks, which >emerge in recent decades either do not influence anything significantly or >are well-known to general public? Are you disagree with me? Do you think that science should be a secret sect? >> >> Neither software nor legal >> >> system can even emerge without humans. Yet criminal law exists. >> > >> >Airplanes could not emerge without humans, but they are much faster than >> >humans, and they can fly. >> >> Thus according to your logic they should be excluded from legal >> system. > >Hm, but they are indeed excluded. For example, as far as I understand, in USA >they are practically excluded from the legal system by the method of >delegation, that is, the law designates a professional (non-legal) body, ^^^^ >> >> Those are not notions, but knowledge. It is *known* that bridges shall >> >> not be built without analysis of statics etc. Again, there is no >> >> reason, why it should be otherwise in case of software. >> > >> >It is quite obvious (and was said many times by various people) that humans >> >have built bridges for many centures, >> >> Yes, and in ancient Rome, the engineer should stand under his bridge >> during first tests. > >Yes, legends said that. But it never was said they those poor Roman engineers >should stand under their bridges all the time while those bridges are used, >or even once per week for a hour. Probably because these bridges keep standing for thousand years. Can you promise that for MS-Word? >> >but they have built software for several >> >decades only. Do you perceive significant difference between many centures >> >and several decades of experience? >> >> I see no difference. Do not build bridges if you cannot. > >Well, OK, we'll have much less bridges. We'll swim and sometimes drown. > >> If you >> believe that you can, be liable for the result. If you know that you >> cannot, but pretend that you can, then your place is in jail. > >I don't want to be in jail - I prefer that you'll be drowned trying to cross >a river without a bridge. There always will be people who will challenge any problem. You should only protect them from those who would make money by selling us air-cushions made of paper. >> >> Consider a bed-side monitoring system for resuscitation departments. >> >> Should a patient die because of software crash, who would be liable? >> > >> >I can't see a difference (for a user, that is either the patient or hospital) >> >between a software crash or hardware malfunction in that system. >> >> The difference is that next time, other firm would pay more attention >> to quality. As you probably know, the most important goal of >> punishment is prevention of crime. > >I still can't see a difference between in this example between software crash >and hardware malfunction in the system. The quality is equally involved in >both cases. So why are you for hardware certification and against software one? -- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de