Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article <94rkj1$d4r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  tom_swiftjr@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Perhaps that's merely a reflection of the state of
> advancement of mathematics
> when you were a lad?

No, just a reflection of  relative importance. Note however
that I had one mathematics class a day from the age of 4 to
13 (when I left England, and this would have continued for
years). I fear the situation is not so fine here in the
good old USA, where many high school students do not have
to take four years of math :-(



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Florian Weimer]

tom_swiftjr@my-deja.com writes:

> > In England, from the age of 7-13 I spent 10 class hours a week
> > learning Latin, and only 5 learning mathematics, when I
> > was 10, I added 5 hours a week of Greek :-) That's the way
> > things were done then.

> Perhaps that's merely a reflection of the state of advancement of
> mathematics when you were a lad?

There's hardly any relationship between the advancement of mathematics
and the math taught at school.  Many important things have been
discovered during the last few decades, but I doubt that (e.g.) the
classification of finite simple groups is relevant for school teaching
(even the trivial classification of finite simple abelian groups is
way beyound what it is taught at schools, at least here in Germany).

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Lao Xiao Hai]

Brian Rogoff wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > Decimate refers to the practice in the Roman army of punishing
> > a failing unit of an army by randomly executing one out of ten
> > members.
>
> Now that's interesting. I wonder if the US military will reintroduce the
> practice to keep software quality high now that Ada is being replaced by
> C++ ;-)

Well, since we are getting silly,  does anyone know how Roman soldiers
counted off?

                       I,  II,  III,  IV, V, VI,  ...

I'm not going to sign this.   :-)

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On 26 Jan 2001, Florian Weimer wrote:
> tom_swiftjr@my-deja.com writes:
> 
> > > In England, from the age of 7-13 I spent 10 class hours a week
> > > learning Latin, and only 5 learning mathematics, when I
> > > was 10, I added 5 hours a week of Greek :-) That's the way
> > > things were done then.
> 
> > Perhaps that's merely a reflection of the state of advancement of
> > mathematics when you were a lad?
> 
> There's hardly any relationship between the advancement of mathematics
> and the math taught at school.

Sad but true. 

>  Many important things have been
> discovered during the last few decades, but I doubt that (e.g.) the
> classification of finite simple groups is relevant for school teaching

Here I think we disagree. I think that there is quite a bit of modern
mathematics that could be brought to the high school student and the 
undergraduate (even the ones who aren't majoring in mathematics) that 
is highly relevant. Non-standard analysis, differential forms (can be 
introduced with multivariable calculus), category theory (a high school 
level approach in the book by Lawvere and Schanuel, linear programming, 
really the list is pretty long.

Personally, I'd much rather spend time studying math than studying Latin; 
the latter seems a waste of time, like being forced to read Shakespeare. 
De gustibus non est disputandum. ;-)

-- Brian

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Pat Rogers]

"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...

<snip>

> Personally, I'd much rather spend time studying math than studying Latin;
> the latter seems a waste of time, like being forced to read Shakespeare.
> De gustibus non est disputandum. ;-)

IMHO reading Shakespeare is one of the most valuable things a human being
can do.  Why?  Because we are emotional as well as intellectual creatures.
Sure, maths may be more applicable in our technical activities, but the
number of technical people I know who have either a) never been able to have
a serious relationship, or b) couldn't make the ones they have had last for
any length of time, suggest that having some knowledge of how emotions work
would have saved them serious hardship.  While that information may be
available in psychology classes (or Machiavelli's "The Prince":), I'd rather
read Shakespeare's prose.  If there is anything about the human condition
worth saying, he has said it, and said it better than anyone else.

---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com        Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com          Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                          Software Fault Tolerance

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Florian Weimer]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:

> > Many important things have been
> > discovered during the last few decades, but I doubt that (e.g.) the
> > classification of finite simple groups is relevant for school teaching
> 
> Here I think we disagree.

Not necessarily.  I don't think it has to be that way, I was just
describing the status quo here.  In fact I hope that some day, modern
mathematics and, more important, the joy of mathematics hit the
schools (calculus is taught in most parts in Germany as if we were in
the 18th or even 17th century, it's pretty confusing and has an aura
as if it was a Dark Art).

> I think that there is quite a bit of modern mathematics that could
> be brought to the high school student and the undergraduate (even
> the ones who aren't majoring in mathematics) that is highly
> relevant.

Many things are relevant, but the interest in mathematics is generally
low among the students in engineering and computer science (at least
that's my impression).  As a result, most lecturers here seem to focus
on the basic stuff and present it in a rigorous manner.

> Non-standard analysis, differential forms (can be introduced with
> multivariable calculus), category theory (a high school level
> approach in the book by Lawvere and Schanuel, linear programming,
> really the list is pretty long.

To be honest, I don't think non-standard analysis and differential
forms are really important (compared to the Lebesgue integral, which
is relatively old and not often taught to undergrads), but early
exposure to category theory is probably a good idea (after you have
seen a bunch of algebraic structures, of course).  But it's probably a
bad idea to discuss such things with me because I'm heavily biased
(I'm hardly interested in calculus and applied mathematics, but I'll
admit that's the part which is relevant for most students).

> Personally, I'd much rather spend time studying math than studying Latin; 
> the latter seems a waste of time, like being forced to read Shakespeare. 

The way I learned Latin at school was a bit similar to real
mathematics, in fact more than math itself (we were taught the Latin
grammar in a rather formal way, and math mostly consisted of very
technical symbolic manipulations).

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> like being forced to read Shakespeare.

It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
in life (the technical junk we all spend so much time with
is not an adequate substitute :-)

And perhaps we should change the subject again ...


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On 27 Jan 2001, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:
> > I think that there is quite a bit of modern mathematics that could
> > be brought to the high school student and the undergraduate (even
> > the ones who aren't majoring in mathematics) that is highly
> > relevant.
> 
> Many things are relevant, but the interest in mathematics is generally
> low among the students in engineering and computer science (at least
> that's my impression).  As a result, most lecturers here seem to focus
> on the basic stuff and present it in a rigorous manner.

I'd be happy with less rigor for CS/engineering types and more of what 
physicists call "galley proofs". Many (most?) people can't memorize
formulae so having an idea as to how to derive a formula or theorem, even
if it isn't completely rigorous, is probably better pedagogy. 

> > Non-standard analysis, differential forms (can be introduced with
> > multivariable calculus), category theory (a high school level
> > approach in the book by Lawvere and Schanuel, linear programming,
> > really the list is pretty long.
> 
> To be honest, I don't think non-standard analysis and differential
> forms are really important (compared to the Lebesgue integral, which
> is relatively old and not often taught to undergrads),

I have the opposite view. Mastery of differential forms allows the student
to get more quickly to advanced physics. Non-standard analysis is easier 
to understand than the theory of limits, at least for me. Real analysis, 
the course where you'd meet Lebesgue integration, is not necessary for 
undergraduate engineers at all. 

> exposure to category theory is probably a good idea (after you have
> seen a bunch of algebraic structures, of course).  But it's probably a
> bad idea to discuss such things with me because I'm heavily biased

I agree about the category theory, but I love talking with others who love
maths, even if they love different parts ;-).

> (I'm hardly interested in calculus and applied mathematics, but I'll
> admit that's the part which is relevant for most students).

Gasp! Understanding the infinitesimal calculus is the "pons asinorum" of 
engineering mathematics. Well, now I expect Robert Dewar to tell me that 
I've used "pons asinorum" incorrectly; just trying to keep this
irrelevant, off topic thread on topic.

> > Personally, I'd much rather spend time studying math than studying Latin; 
> > the latter seems a waste of time, like being forced to read Shakespeare. 
> 
> The way I learned Latin at school was a bit similar to real
> mathematics, in fact more than math itself (we were taught the Latin
> grammar in a rather formal way, and math mostly consisted of very
> technical symbolic manipulations).

I have a very strong continuous applied math background, and almost no
Latin background whatsoever. Sounds like you were taught math by reading 
the reference manual rather than the rationale. 

-- Brian

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > like being forced to read Shakespeare.
> 
> It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
> appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
> in life

I don't think so. You're certainly entitled to choose to appreciate
whatever you want, but it's a bit silly to make a sweeping statement 
like that. There are lots of things I don't appreciate, like opera, 
and country & western music. No doubt a C&W fan would make the same sort 
of remark about my disdain for his preferred art form as you Shakespeare 
freaks would make. There are more preferences in heaven and earth, Robert,  
than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :-)

> (the technical junk we all spend so much time with
> is not an adequate substitute :-)

The insinuation that I'm a technical monomaniac is without any basis 
in reality. I read lots of nontechnical literature. The fact that I find 
Shakespeare's work shallow and boring means nothing. I do find it
interesting that the Bard's fans get all worked up about it though. I've 
enjoyed a few Stephen King novels (more than Shakepseare!) but when
someone says they don't like King I don't care. The Shakespeare worship 
phenomena fascinates me because it has taken on the trappings of religion, 
and when I reveal my distaste for this stuff someone like you or Pat Rogers 
will come out with a ridiculous generalization on the power of his 
words. It's almost like talking to Scientologists or ESTers. I spent a
fair amount of time being forced to read this stuff and IMHO it sucks. 
If I really need to read verse there's always Vikram Seth :-)

> And perhaps we should change the subject again ...

Nah, this bizarre thread is really funny as it is, I love the way it
changes from one topic to another. Omnia mutantur, nos et mutamur in
illis.

Absit invidia...

-- Brian 

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Pat Rogers]

"Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271915410.28283-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > In article
> > <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > > like being forced to read Shakespeare.
> >
> > It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
> > appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
> > in life
>
> I don't think so. You're certainly entitled to choose to appreciate
> whatever you want, but it's a bit silly to make a sweeping statement
> like that. There are lots of things I don't appreciate, like opera,
> and country & western music. No doubt a C&W fan would make the same sort
> of remark about my disdain for his preferred art form as you Shakespeare
> freaks would make. There are more preferences in heaven and earth, Robert,
> than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :-)
>
> > (the technical junk we all spend so much time with
> > is not an adequate substitute :-)
>
> The insinuation that I'm a technical monomaniac is without any basis
> in reality. I read lots of nontechnical literature. The fact that I find
> Shakespeare's work shallow and boring means nothing.

There is some irony here.  Firstly, that you did not write precisely what
you meant:

"Personally, I'd much rather spend time studying math than studying Latin;
the latter seems a waste of time, like being forced to read Shakespeare. "

> I do find it
> interesting that the Bard's fans get all worked up about it though. I've
> enjoyed a few Stephen King novels (more than Shakepseare!) but when
> someone says they don't like King I don't care. The Shakespeare worship
> phenomena fascinates me because it has taken on the trappings of religion,
> and when I reveal my distaste for this stuff someone like you or Pat
Rogers
> will come out with a ridiculous generalization on the power of his
> words. It's almost like talking to Scientologists or ESTers.

And secondly, that you've made such an emotional response.

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271915410.28283-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:

> The Shakespeare worship

Not a matter of worship, just appreciatation

> and when I reveal my distaste for this stuff

Perhaps you were badly introduced in school, which is a shame
indeed! No one is saying you have to like Shakespeare, but we
can be sorry that you are missing out :-) After all you may be
missing something, and if you think Shakespeare is "shallow",
most likely you are! One can dislike Shakespeare for many
reasons, but a judgment that it is shallow almost certainly
means that there is indeed something you are missing. That's
not so surprising. It's hard work, and often introduced very
badly in schools.

Of course you can dismiss this as spoutings of elitist
nonsense, but in this case there do seem to be a *rather*
large number of spouters. Are you REALLY saying you see
nothing to appreciate in Branagh's Henry V (please don't
tell me you haven't seen it



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271915410.28283-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Shakespeare worship
> 
> Not a matter of worship, just appreciatation

As I said, there are many art forms which I appreciate, and many which I
don't, but I don't jump up every time someone criticizes an author I like, 
since I realize that this is subjective. A very large fraction of the
people I know who like Shakespeare don't possess similar detachment 
concerning this topic. 

> > and when I reveal my distaste for this stuff
> 
> Perhaps you were badly introduced in school, which is a shame
> indeed! No one is saying you have to like Shakespeare, but we
> can be sorry that you are missing out :-) 

Are you a country and western music fan? If not consider having this 
discussion with an intelligent enthusiast of said art form, who 
can also point out the richness and range of human experience captured 
in C & W, and how much you'd are missing out on account of that C & W 
shaped gap in your heart :-). If you do like that loathsome stuff, please 
find something you don't like and try the same thought experiment. 

Quot homines, tot sententiae. 

> After all you may be missing something, and if you think Shakespeare is
> "shallow", most likely you are! 

Possibly, but it seems you're back to making sweeping statements again,
which is unfortunate. I suppose if I am shallow, then you shouldn't 
even bother continuing. 

> It's not clear how you arrive at such a conclusion, One can dislike
> Shakespeare for many reasons, but a judgment that it is shallow almost
> certainly means that there is indeed something you are missing. That's
> not so surprising. It's hard work, and often introduced very
> badly in schools.

I'll look at one dimension, ethical values. 

Let's consider the works of of Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens. Do the values 
espoused by Clemens transcend the era of the author or are they for the
most part mired in it? Now consider your beloved Bard. Would you answer
that question the same way? As you can guess, I wouldn't. 

> Of course you can dismiss this as spoutings of elitist
> nonsense, 

Yes, maybe that's a bit tougher than how I'd put it, but close enough. 

> but in this case there do seem to be a *rather*
> large number of spouters. 

Surely that argument isn't convincing, least of all here, on comp.lang.ada?

> Are you REALLY saying you see
> nothing to appreciate in Branagh's Henry V (please don't
> tell me you haven't seen it

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't seen it. I haven't owned a TV
for a year and a half, and am not likely to get one either, so I don't
imagine I'll ever see it. 

While I agree that this thread is not too bothersome given it's explicit
irrelevance to Ada in the subject line, Pascal Obry's complaint is making
me wonder if it wouldn't be better off in e-mail. If we were discussing
the work of Nabokov, or even Thomas Tryon, I could probably swing it to
Ada, alas Shakespeare just doesn't give me enough to work with. :-)

Pascal, if you're truly bothered, I'll stop, but I hope that you'll apply
the same stick to the many irrelevant posts that come up under mislabeled 
topics, or the many off-topic asides in relevant threads, etc. 

-- Brian

(Anyone who can get the Thomas Tryon reference is truly well read, or has 
 a good movie memory and seen lot's of movies ;-)

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101281924120.18672-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Are you a country and western music fan?

Yes, so snip the "if not"


> If you do like that loathsome stuff

Boy, we certainly have some strong negative feelings on things
don't we? :-)

> please  find something you don't like and try the same
> thought experiment.

Actually I can't really think of a parellel -- something that
is very widely acknowledged to be a worth while art form that
I don't like ... hard to do -- and certainly not with the
vehemence that you trot out :-)

> Possibly, but it seems you're back to making sweeping
> statements again, which is unfortunate.

Well I think they are statements with which many would agree.

> I suppose if I am shallow, then you shouldn't
> even bother continuing.

Please read posts carefully, no one said you were shallow ...
> Now consider your beloved Bard

Sorry, he is not my "beloved Bard", please don't assume that
the rest of the world reacts with the vehemence you do in
either direction.

> > Are you REALLY saying you see
> > nothing to appreciate in Branagh's Henry V (please don't
> > tell me you haven't seen it
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't seen it.

Oh that is a shame ...

> I haven't owned a TV
> for a year and a half, and am not likely to get one either,
> so I don't imagine I'll ever see it.

and that's even more of a shame, oh well ..



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article <952hmb$niq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article
>
<Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271915410.28283-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>
> > The Shakespeare worship

I have a question, and it even has a (slender) relevance to
Ada. Have you ever seen a Shakespeare play done by a really
good company? Perhaps not ... if not, then perhaps you are
making the same error that some people make when it comes
to Ada, dismissing it without really knowing much about it.

Going back to your question, about how I would react to an
art form I dislike, I can think of one, which is Heavy Metal
Rock (I don't dislike all Rock), but that means I don't listen
to it, which means I know nothing about it, which means that
I would not give any judgment on its worth.

My son Keith has really broad musical tastes (and is very
knowledgable -- he worked in the classical section of Tower
for a number of years). When he was in high school, and I
would arrive home, it was a toss up whether Mozart or some
variety of loud rock music (I don't even know the genre well
enough to know *exactly* what constitutes heavy metal :-)
Once I came home, and it was the latter, and when I asked
Keith to turn it down, he said "Dad! You have such narrow
musical tastes!"

When it comes to programming languages, it is amazing how
many people dismiss programming languages they know absolutely
nothing about. How many people do you know who in some sense
are experts in the PL field who don't know COBOL or VB, but
are quite sure that both these languages are junk.

Back to Shakespeare. It is one thing to say: "I really don't
appreciate Shakespeare, or understand what people see in him",
and quite another to say "Shakespeare is shallow" without
being a serious student of Shakespeare (no doubt there are
some who *are* serious students, and who would claim him to
be shallow -- their arguments would be interesting to listen
to).

Back to Programming Languages. It is one thing to say "I don't
really know language XXX, so I can't really make a judgment on
what it is good for", and quite another to say "language XXX
is a piece of junk" [without really knowing language XXX].

Gosh, an Ada relevance of sorts in this thread (Pascal,
if your news reader is still forcing you to actually read all
these messages, then you can find the magic word :-)

Robert



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Stephen Leake]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:

> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > In article
> > <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > > like being forced to read Shakespeare.
> > 
> > It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
> > appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
> > in life
> 
> I don't think so. You're certainly entitled to choose to appreciate
> whatever you want, but it's a bit silly to make a sweeping statement 
> like that. There are lots of things I don't appreciate, like opera, 
> and country & western music. No doubt a C&W fan would make the same sort 
> of remark about my disdain for his preferred art form as you Shakespeare 
> freaks would make. There are more preferences in heaven and earth, Robert,  
> than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :-)

For example, read some Orson Scott Card, or Ursula K. LeGuin. There's
real emotion, real philosophy, and relevance for current times.

-- 
-- Stephe

(sorry, no Latin here :)

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

I'll quickly reply here, but since the number of objectors to this thread
is rising I suggest that my interlocutors continue by e-mail. Thanks to 
Robert's cunning mind though, we manage to drift back to Ada (the
programming language Ada that is ;-) by the end of the mail. 

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > Are you a country and western music fan?
> 
> Yes, so snip the "if not"
> 
> > If you do like that loathsome stuff
> 
> Boy, we certainly have some strong negative feelings on things
> don't we? :-)

It's a joke. Obviously many people like C&W, and that's OK with me. 
The difference is that I wasn't forced to listen to a long stream of 
C&W in high school, with some pompous blowhard (or snaggletoothed 
trailer-park redneck :) extolling its virtues to me, as was the case 
with Shakespeare. I did take one of those general "music appreciation" 
classes and sure enough there are musical forms I don't like.  

> > please  find something you don't like and try the same
> > thought experiment.
> 
> Actually I can't really think of a parellel -- something that
> is very widely acknowledged to be a worth while art form that
> I don't like ... hard to do -- and certainly not with the
> vehemence that you trot out :-)

You should realize that what seems like vehemence to you may simply 
be playfulness to me. 

> > Possibly, but it seems you're back to making sweeping
> > statements again, which is unfortunate.
> 
> Well I think they are statements with which many would agree.

Argumentum ad populum. 

> > I suppose if I am shallow, then you shouldn't
> > even bother continuing.
> 
> Please read posts carefully, no one said you were shallow ...

There is no need to get legalistic, the insinuation was clear. If you want
to get legalistic, I didn't say you said I was shallow, read the quoted 
statement again. 

> > Now consider your beloved Bard
> 
> Sorry, he is not my "beloved Bard", please don't assume that
> the rest of the world reacts with the vehemence you do in
> either direction.

I wouldn't be vehement if I hadn't been forced to study, read, and perform 
a fair amount of that stuff. One representative work from the author would 
have been enough. 

> > I haven't owned a TV
> > for a year and a half, and am not likely to get one either,
> > so I don't imagine I'll ever see it.
> 
> and that's even more of a shame, oh well ..

That I don't own a TV? Best move I've made in recent memory, I'd advise 
everyone to try it. :-)

> In article <952hmb$niq$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101271915410.28283-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> >   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The Shakespeare worship
> 
> I have a question, and it even has a (slender) relevance to
> Ada. Have you ever seen a Shakespeare play done by a really
> good company? 

I don't know, since you haven't defined "a really good company". I do
remember seeing (on TV) a performance of Hamlet with Derek Jacobi as 
Hamlet, if that means anything to you. 

> Perhaps not ... if not, then perhaps you are
> making the same error that some people make when it comes
> to Ada, dismissing it without really knowing much about it.

How much does one need to study Ada before deciding that it isn't for
them? The analogy you're making is difficult, but let's go with it. 
In the case of Ada, I parroted the commonly held beliefs about Ada 
(incidentally, held by *many* well known computer scientists at prominent
universities like MIT and Stanford) until I actually used Ada for some 
smallish tasks and found I liked it much better than C, C++, or Java, or 
really, that I was able to accomplish tasks faster and more reliably
using Ada than these other languages (which I knew far better BTW). 

So my current opinion of Ada is from usage, and entirely on tasks
that would be considered small or medium-small. I didn't read the entire 
RM and Rationale and design documents before I decided that I liked 
Ada, and had a good idea of what kind of language it is. That seems to be
what you'd have me do before I accepting my opinion on Shakespeare as
acceptable.

(BTW, good segue back to Ada ;-)

> Going back to your question, about how I would react to an
> art form I dislike, I can think of one, which is Heavy Metal
> Rock (I don't dislike all Rock), but that means I don't listen
> to it, which means I know nothing about it,

Actually, you know you don't like it, which *is* something. Heavy metal 
doesn't appeal to you as a listener. Thank goodness, for a minute I
thought you were going to tell me you like everything, even the sound of
fingernails on a chalkboard, or white noise. (FWIW, I actually like 
heavy metal, and Baroque music, and jazz... :)

> which means that I would not give any judgment on its worth.

I suspect that if your music teachers in school had focused a large
fraction of their time on heavy metal, you might like it even less, and 
be willing to comment a bit more harshly :-)

> When it comes to programming languages, it is amazing how
> many people dismiss programming languages they know absolutely
> nothing about. How many people do you know who in some sense
> are experts in the PL field who don't know COBOL or VB, but
> are quite sure that both these languages are junk.

How about Ada? I could name names, but I've heard profound mistatements 
about our beloved Ada (it's a joke!) from professors who should know
better. 

> Back to Shakespeare. It is one thing to say: "I really don't
> appreciate Shakespeare, or understand what people see in him",

Fair enough. I really don't appreciate Shakespeare, or understand what
people see in him, and I resent having my time squandered studying his
works to the exclusion of other potentially interesting works. That is 
how we got here from Latin, since some people consider that many hours
spent on the study of Latin is suboptimal, seeing as time is limited and 
a language like Spanish or French (with a large living population of
native speakers) is arguably more worthy of study. 

> Back to Programming Languages. It is one thing to say "I don't
> really know language XXX, so I can't really make a judgment on
> what it is good for", and quite another to say "language XXX
> is a piece of junk" [without really knowing language XXX].

I've also heard people who knew less Shakespeare than I did tell me how 
great Shakespeare is, and how wrong I am to hold my opinion, just like
I've heard people who know less about C++ or Ada than I do tell me that 
C++ is better than Ada! I have no doubt that someone can like C++ better 
than Ada (for example, I like automatic instantiation of template
functions and wish Ada had a similar feature :) and that I can find 
something I like about Shakespeare (or country and western) but at 
some point you just have to be able to accept that intelligent people can 
disagree on some topics (well, not on Ada vs C++, that's where your 
analogy breaks down :-)

-- Brian

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Pascal Obry]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:

> Pascal, if you're truly bothered, I'll stop, but I hope that you'll apply
> the same stick to the many irrelevant posts that come up under mislabeled 
> topics, or the many off-topic asides in relevant threads, etc. 

No, I'm not! I must say that at this point it is quite entertaining ;)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Pascal Obry]

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Gosh, an Ada relevance of sorts in this thread (Pascal,
> if your news reader is still forcing you to actually read all
> these messages, then you can find the magic word :-)

Well my news reader (which is VM BTW) does have a kill file feature, but I
won't use it for this thread... It is really entertaining to watch the thread
evolution ;)

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[David Starner]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:04:48 GMT, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
>When it comes to programming languages, it is amazing how
>many people dismiss programming languages they know absolutely
>nothing about. How many people do you know who in some sense
>are experts in the PL field who don't know COBOL or VB, but
>are quite sure that both these languages are junk.

And sometimes ... I read an article on the net explaining that assembly
was so great, and it has all the advantages of a high level language
except for portability, and *that you should listen to the people
who program half their code in assembly, because the others don't
know the language*. If you require someone to know a language inside
and out before having an opinion on it, only the people who will have
an opinion on it are those who love it enough to spend all that time
learning it. 

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[kopilovitch]

I think that Robert Dewar's propaganda of Shakespeare is sufficiently
relevant to the Ada language. Just because it reflects some mental
attitude(s)
of at least one of the most active designers and supporters of Ada
language.
I invite the Usenet-police-callers to observe that Ada Reference Manual
and
Rationale aren't, after all, self-organized and self-developing
creatures.
  I see some significance in the facts that one of the most active real
supporters of Ada - Robert Dewar - promotes Shakespeare, and at the
same time,
author of the best books about Delphi - Ray Lischner - maintains a
website
dedicated to Shakespeare.

  By the way, Robert, maybe you will help me in one problem of that
sort:
I decided to reread Ecclesiastes, and this time to read it in English
(a long
ago I read it in Russian). But when I went to www.gospelcom.net/bible,
I saw
there 7 (!) different translations of Ecclesiastes:

  New International Version
  King James Version
  New American Standard Bible
  Revised Standard Version
  Darby Translation
  Young's Literal Translation
  New King James Version

Which version do you recommend?


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia



Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On 29 Jan 2001, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:
> 
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> > >   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > > > like being forced to read Shakespeare.
> > > 
> > > It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
> > > appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
> > > in life
> > 
> > I don't think so. You're certainly entitled to choose to appreciate
> > whatever you want, but it's a bit silly to make a sweeping statement 
> > like that. There are lots of things I don't appreciate, like opera, 
> > and country & western music. No doubt a C&W fan would make the same sort 
> > of remark about my disdain for his preferred art form as you Shakespeare 
> > freaks would make. There are more preferences in heaven and earth, Robert,  
> > than are dreamt of in your philosophy. :-)
> 
> For example, read some Orson Scott Card, or Ursula K. LeGuin. There's
> real emotion, real philosophy, and relevance for current times.

Well, the fact is that if you decide to study a topic then you have also 
decided that other topics may not be studied, since your time is limited. 
The root of decide is the same as homicide, patricide, etc. So the
decision to devote a large amount of effort to Shakespeare kills the
study of more modern and interesting topics :-). 

Interestingly, there was *no* science fiction in any of my required
literature studies. 

-- Brian

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article <954e7d$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
  dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote:
>. If you require someone to know a language inside
> and out before having an opinion on it, only the people who
will have
> an opinion on it are those who love it enough to spend all
that time
> learning it.


You do not have to "love" a language to spend time learning
it. Indeed the idea of expending such a deep emotion as love
on some technical artifical language is a bit sad ....

If have NOT learned a language, then you don't know it. If
you don't know it, then you really can't comment on it
in an informed manner, and what happens is that people tend
to borrow their pseudo-opinions from what they have heard.

So for example, lots of people will dismiss COBOL as too
verbose, which overall is plain technical nonsense (when I
gave a talk at Berkeley on COBOL, I spent time addressing
this silly issue just because so many people are under
this illusion -- we took several standard algorithms, and
programmed them in several languages, and COBOL came out
as short or shorter than the competition, both in characters
and token count :-) Of course this is a totally uninteresting
issue anyway, and has nothing to do with the things that make
COBOL an interesting language :-)

With regard to assembly language, you cannot have an opinion
on AL from a language point of view unless you have reasonable
working knowledge of an AL.

It is really a rule of all honest intellectual approaches that
you cannot offer opinions on things you don't know about. If
you have not read Dickens, then you do NOT go selling other's
opinions of Dickens as though they were your own!


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Brian Rogoff]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article <954e7d$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
>   dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote:
> >. If you require someone to know a language inside
> > and out before having an opinion on it, only the people who
> will have
> > an opinion on it are those who love it enough to spend all
> that time
> > learning it.
> 
> 
> You do not have to "love" a language to spend time learning
> it. Indeed the idea of expending such a deep emotion as love
> on some technical artifical language is a bit sad ....

From MW Pocket 
love: 4 to take pleasure in <~s to play bridge>

It's usually considered bad form to deliberately misinterpret someone's 
words like that. In general, I try very hard to find a reasonable (to me :)
interpretation of a statement that looks odd. When I say "I love movies" 
or "I love chess" it's not the same sense as "I love my wife" or "I love
my son", but, like Ada, English permits overloading.  

The rest is fine, but skirts David Starner's point. How well do you have
to know a language before you can be said to comment on it in an informed
manner? I don't know C++ like the back of my hand. I don't have a PhD in 
Shakespeare studies. I haven't implemented an Ada compiler, nor have I 
held political office. Should I just shut up about all of these topics?

-- Brian

> If have NOT learned a language, then you don't know it. If
> you don't know it, then you really can't comment on it
> in an informed manner, and what happens is that people tend
> to borrow their pseudo-opinions from what they have heard.
> 
> So for example, lots of people will dismiss COBOL as too
> verbose, which overall is plain technical nonsense (when I
> gave a talk at Berkeley on COBOL, I spent time addressing
> this silly issue just because so many people are under
> this illusion -- we took several standard algorithms, and
> programmed them in several languages, and COBOL came out
> as short or shorter than the competition, both in characters
> and token count :-) Of course this is a totally uninteresting
> issue anyway, and has nothing to do with the things that make
> COBOL an interesting language :-)
> 
> With regard to assembly language, you cannot have an opinion
> on AL from a language point of view unless you have reasonable
> working knowledge of an AL.
> 
> It is really a rule of all honest intellectual approaches that
> you cannot offer opinions on things you don't know about. If
> you have not read Dickens, then you do NOT go selling other's
> opinions of Dickens as though they were your own!
> 
> 
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
> 

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Martin Dowie]

"Love is an ocean of emotions entirely surrounded by expenses."
--- Thomas Robert Dewar

Any relation... :-)


Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:955m5h$brm$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <954e7d$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu>,
>   dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org wrote:
> >. If you require someone to know a language inside
> > and out before having an opinion on it, only the people who
> will have
> > an opinion on it are those who love it enough to spend all
> that time
> > learning it.
>
>
> You do not have to "love" a language to spend time learning
> it. Indeed the idea of expending such a deep emotion as love
> on some technical artifical language is a bit sad ....

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Mark Lundquist]

<kopilovitch@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:954svq$mt1$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>   By the way, Robert, maybe you will help me in one problem of that
> sort:
> I decided to reread Ecclesiastes, and this time to read it in English
> (a long
> ago I read it in Russian). But when I went to www.gospelcom.net/bible,
> I saw
> there 7 (!) different translations of Ecclesiastes:
>
>   New International Version
>   King James Version
>   New American Standard Bible
>   Revised Standard Version
>   Darby Translation
>   Young's Literal Translation
>   New King James Version
>
> Which version do you recommend?

I can't speak for Robert, and I hope neither of you mind if I interject...

I just reread Ecclesiastes myself, toward the end of last year (and you know
what, there's still nothing new under the sun... :-)

I'd recommend you read all the translations!  Ecclesiastes is not that long
of a book.  If I had to choose just one, I would probably not choose the KVJ
(the original 1611 translation) or the Darby, but I'd be happy with probably
any of the others (except that I've never seen the Young's, so I can't
comment on it).  However, if I had to pick *two*, the KJV would probably be
my first choice for the second pick!

Certainly the style of language in the KJV is far from current, and that
makes it
awkward for some people, and others (who are in a position to know) consider
that it contains some translational inaccuracies.  It of course has the
"thee/thou/ye" forms, which even in 1611 were obsolete, having dropped from
usage some 200-300 years before, but were employed by the translators to
preserve the singular/plural distinction.  And it has the obsolete
conjugational suffixes ("est/eth").  But if you can get past all that,
theKJV has in places a singular literary grace.

The NKJV is a translation from the original languages that uses the 1611 KJV
as a template (not a source).

Darby would probably interesting for a student of systematic theology
and comparative doctrine.  John Nelson Darby was the founder of the
Plymouth Brethren and the father of premillenial dispensationalism.  I've
never read his translation of the Bible, but I have studied his
commentaries, and  I find his hermeneutics to be somewhat stretched at
times.  I wouldn't use his as a "main" translation.

Now then... the NASB is great.  It takes the "direct" side of the direct vs.
intent tradeoff in translation, which results in some wording and sentence
structures which are not very idiomatic English.  The NIV takes the
other side of the tradeoff, and as such it reads well for a modern reader.
It has a feel that is consistent, but a little "safe".  Also, if you study
theology you start to discern some doctrinal "coloration" in the
translation -- nowhere near being fraudulent or anything, just enough to
make you want to have some other translations on hand.  I say this speaking
for myself as one who is solidly evangelical in doctrine (and the NIV
definitely comes out of the evangelical tradition).  I also think that some
of the translation decisions were dubious.  I don't know the original
languages, so my statement is based on the study of commentaries that
discuss meanings in the original languages.  Nevertheless,my "main" Bible is
an NIV (mostly because my wife gave me one years ago, and now it has all my
underlinings and notes scrawled in the margins, etc.).  I also like the RSV,
although I don't know very much about it.  Another favorite is the Berklee
translation if you can lay your hands on one.  I grew up with that (for some
reason) and just recently reread the gospel of John in the Berklee -- just
great.

And you ought to read from the Living Bible as well.  It's a paraphrase, not
a translation.  But it can be quite refreshing to read it along with a
translated text.

Bottom line, there can be no single "best" translation and it is a good
thing that there are so many.

Have fun!

Mark Lundquist

P.S.  The whole issue of translation in general is really fascinating.  I
remember when I first got hooked on the works of Stanislaw Lem.  Then I read
some more of his stuff that seemed flat and pedestrian.  It just kind of
went "thud" -- all the sparkle and depth were missing.  Then I realized that
the pieces that worked were translated by Michael Kandel, and none of the
ones that went "thud" were translated by him.  Considering all that there is
in Lem -- the thought structures, multiple layers of meaning, and
self-referential pardoxes ("A Perfect Vacuum", "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub"
etc.) and the whimsical word-play of his short stories, it's just amazing
that the stuff can be translated at all.  (Maybe Lem himself is a dullard,
and Kandell is some kind of James Joyce of translation! :-).

If there are any other SL fans out there... does anyone know if there's an
immediate translation of "Solaris" from Polish to English?  For a long time
the only English version available was itself translated from a French
version (I think something like that might have been the problem with some
of the things that went "thud"...)

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Mark Lundquist]

David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:954e7d$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu...
>
> And sometimes ... I read an article on the net explaining that assembly
> was so great, and it has all the advantages of a high level language
> except for portability, and *that you should listen to the people
> who program half their code in assembly, because the others don't
> know the language*.

Well there the nature of the argument is a bit different.  Assembly vs. HLLs
is all about level of abstraction.  In the case of language X vs. language
Y, the argument is often partially about level abstraction (especially where
X or Y is  "Ada" :-), but to a lesser degree, and also in combination with
other factors rather than just level of abstraction alone.  But regarding
assembly vs. HLL's, I don't think deep knowledge of some particular
machine-level programming model is required in order to make intellgent
statements about the issues (although I'm sure a  person who has done some
significant assembly programming as well as HLL programming is in a position
to have some unique insights into the tradeoffs).

> If you require someone to know a language inside
> and out before having an opinion on it, only the people who will have
> an opinion on it are those who love it enough to spend all that time
> learning it.
>

That seems a bit reactionary :-)  Robert's point seemed pretty innocent --
it was just that one ought to have some authentic knowledge if they're going
to have opinions about something.  It seems hard to argue against that! :-)
Otherwise, as Mark Twain said, they are not real opinions at all, only "corn
pone opinions" -- either hearsay or speculation, or both.  Just like when
people say "Ada must suck, because it was designed by a committee", because
they heard someone else say this, and that person got it from the "New
Hacker's Dictionary", etc.  Dewar's point seems to be not about the
completeness of one's knowledge, but about the firsthand nature of it.

I don't know Ada inside and out, and I've been corrected more than a few
times by Dewar and others, but I've never been made to feel as if I'm being
told that I'm unqualified to participate in the discussions we have in
this forum.  Dewar *does* happen to know the language inside and out, so
he's often in a position to do the correcting, but you can't really hold
that against him :-)

Best Regards,
Mark Lundquist

P.S.  A while back I started to notice that dialogs and arguments tend to
get driven to extremes of position.  And once I started to notice this, I
began to notice it everywhere I looked :-).  I don't know if this is a
Western cultural thing, or a modern thing, or what.  But while everybody
readily admits that extremes are to be avoided, we all seem unwilling to let
someone else hold a moderate position! :-)   For instance, if you make a
statement like "Laizzes-faire economics does produces undesirable results",
someone will say "Oh, so you're some kind of socialist, is that it?"  If you
argue against an extreme position, people assume you are advocating the
opposite extreme, and it
takes a lot of convincing to get them to believe that you aren't doing that.
Funny!

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[David Starner]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:11:23 -0800, Mark Lundquist <mark@rational.com> wrote:
>That seems a bit reactionary :-)  Robert's point seemed pretty innocent --
>it was just that one ought to have some authentic knowledge if they're going
>to have opinions about something. 

But this was in a discussion of Shakespeare, where someone said that he 
didn't like Shakespeare, for such and such a reason, and Robert Dewar said
he hadn't studied it enough. The original author had some authentic 
knowledge - the question was how much was needed.

-- 
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Jeffrey Carter]

Mark Lundquist wrote:
> [The King James Bible] of course has the
> "thee/thou/ye" forms, which even in 1611 were obsolete, having dropped from
> usage some 200-300 years before ...

An interesting assertion, considering that Shakespeare used them
pervasively when writing less than 50 years before, and 225 years before
was when Chaucer was writing late Middle English, and such things were
definitely in common use then.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You tiny-brained wipers of other people's bottoms!"
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Mark Lundquist]

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3A7B5EC8.55E203D2@acm.org...
> Mark Lundquist wrote:
> > [The King James Bible] of course has the
> > "thee/thou/ye" forms, which even in 1611 were obsolete, having dropped
from
> > usage some 200-300 years before ...
>
> An interesting assertion, considering that Shakespeare used them
> pervasively when writing less than 50 years before, and 225 years before
> was when Chaucer was writing late Middle English, and such things were
> definitely in common use then.

Hey wise guy, what's the big idea dragging Shakespeare into this?  Can't we
stay on-topic for one minute?

The nerve of some people....

:-)
-- mark

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Al Christians]

Mark Lundquist wrote:
> 
> Hey wise guy, what's the big idea dragging Shakespeare into this?  
> Can't we  stay on-topic for one minute?
> 

OK.  How would Hamlet have worked out better if Shakespeare had used
Ada?  Would it have come in in 45 minutes with 40% fewer actors and
60% less tragedy?

Obviously, his development process was out of control.  He released 
Henry 6.0, followed that up with Henry 4.0, and then Henry 5.0 and
then Henry 8.0.  Henry 7.0 never even got released.  If he had used 
Ada, would Richard 2.0 have been released as an upgrade to Richard 3.0?

Several of his sonnets were accidentally released that didn't even have 
fourteen lines.

He forgot to put "All that glisters is not gold" under change control.

But we still use his quality assurance procedure: "All's Well that Ends
Well".


Al

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Mark Lundquist]

Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:3A7F00D7.494EF114@easystreet.com...
>
> OK.  How would Hamlet have worked out better if Shakespeare had used
> Ada?  Would it have come in in 45 minutes with 40% fewer actors and
> 60% less tragedy?

Would Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern still be dead?...




:-)
-- mark

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Buz Cory]

On 1/27/01, 7:08:58 PM, Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote 
regarding Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics:

> In article
> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101262056580.20133-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > like being forced to read Shakespeare.

> It's a shame to see an attitude like this. Anyone not able to
> appreciate Shakespeare is missing something pretty important
> in life

Certainly, but forcing children to read Shakespeare without ever 
seeing a performance nor adequate instruction in reading and 
understanding stage directions can be pure torture.

Children should be exposed to performances of such things as 
"Midsummer Night's Dream". Things like "Taming of the Shrew" and 
"Romeo and Juliet", much less "Hamlet" should not be read or watched 
until the late teens or later. We were forced to read Shakespeare when 
I was about 12! And with no prior experience reading plays.

> (the technical junk we all spend so much time with
> is not an adequate substitute :-)

Agreed, but forcing children to read Shakespeare early makes it less 
likely, not more, that that person will ever learn to read him with 
understanding and enjoyment.

== Buz :)

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Al Christians]

Buz Cory wrote:
> 
> Agreed, but forcing children to read Shakespeare early makes it less
> likely, not more, that that person will ever learn to read him with
> understanding and enjoyment.
> 

Let us return to an on-topic topic, if only as an aside:  

If my intent is to write code that will be not only read and performed,
but also revered, 400 years hence, what language and style should I 
take a shot at?  

How is it that single authors produce the most praised literary works,
but egoless, pair, and team-oriented approaches are favored for software
works?


Al

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Ted Dennison]

In article <95uav7$nfb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
> In article <3A824CF4.940EA80E@PublicPropertySoftware.com>,
>   Al Christians <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > How is it that single authors produce the most praised
> > literary works, but egoless, pair, and team-oriented
> > approaches are favored for software
> > works?
>
> Perhaps because software projects have more in common with
> engineering tasks than fine art. This does not mean that there
> is no artistic element. When a team designs and builds a

The analogy Fredrick Brooks used in "The Mythical Man-Month" was
building a Cathedral. His archetype is Reims Cathedral, whose builders
supposedly stuck to the original plan and style, despite changes in
architectural fashion, through the multiple generations it took to build.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
>It's possible for one person to build a house, and there are
>some remarkable examples of that. It is possible for one person
>to write a moderate sized software program, and there are some
>remarkable examples of that also. But for the most part, these
>two tasks are out of range of one individual (unlike writing
>a novel or painting a picture), so we need a cooperative team
>in both cases.

It is interesting enough, why exactly "for the most part, these two tasks are
out of range of one individual". Let's imagine an experiment: a person (which
is assumed to be qualified in relevant areas) uses two separate environments
- one for design work and another for implementation. Say, two offices in
different parts of the town. And that person strictly follows the discipline:
no implementaion work in the Design Office, no design work in the Implementation
Office, and there is no way to extract an information from either office (until the end
of the project) except of a single established chanell which connects those
two offices (something like e-mail).
  Why that isn't enough? Why that "time-slicing" can't simulate an effect of 
two cooperating persons?
  (For another division you may imagine an Artistic Office and Pure Enginerring
Office, for example.)

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[sk]

>It is interesting enough, why exactly "for the most part, these two tasks are
>out of range of one individual". Let's imagine an experiment: a person (which
>is assumed to be qualified in relevant areas) uses two separate environments
>- one for design work and another for implementation. Say, two offices in
>different parts of the town. And that person strictly follows the discipline:
>no implementaion work in the Design Office, no design work in the Implementation
>Office, and there is no way to extract an information from either office (until 
>the end of the project) except of a single established chanell which connects 
>those two offices (something like e-mail).
>  Why that isn't enough? Why that "time-slicing" can't simulate an effect of 
>two cooperating persons?
>  (For another division you may imagine an Artistic Office and Pure Enginerring
>Office, for example.)

So, you mean a clear separation of concerns, a clearly defined
protocol to 
communicate between the offices ...

Hey, this thread did get back to Ada after all.

 o o
  |
 \_/

sknipe@ktc.com

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, Ecclesiastes and other irrelevant topics

[Florian Weimer]

Al Christians <achrist@easystreet.com> writes:

> OK.  How would Hamlet have worked out better if Shakespeare had used
> Ada?  Would it have come in in 45 minutes with 40% fewer actors and
> 60% less tragedy?

'Much Ada About Nothing' would probably tell the story of a bastard
programmer who tries to jeopardize an implementation of the task
interaction described in ARM 9.5.2.

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Mark Lundquist]

Al Christians <alc@PublicPropertySoftware.com> wrote in message
news:3A824CF4.940EA80E@PublicPropertySoftware.com...
> Buz Cory wrote:
> >
> > Agreed, but forcing children to read Shakespeare early makes it less
> > likely, not more, that that person will ever learn to read him with
> > understanding and enjoyment.
> >
>
> Let us return to an on-topic topic, if only as an aside:

Then I suppose we should change the subject line :-)... but I couldn't
figure out what to change it to :-)

>
> If my intent is to write code that will be not only read and performed,
> but also revered, 400 years hence, what language and style should I
> take a shot at?

Language: empirically, COBOL seems to have the most staying power.

Style: as obscure as possible.  If nobody knows what your code does or how
it works, they will be afraid to change it and it will acheive immortality.

:-) :-) :-)

>
> How is it that single authors produce the most praised literary works,
> but egoless, pair, and team-oriented approaches are favored for software
> works?

1) Time-efficiency.  Important in software development, not important in
literature.

2) Art is (arguably) a personal expression.  Programming is instrumental
(not an end in itself), and ideally the only thing "expressed" about its
author(s) is how good he/she/they are at solving the problem.  Often two
heads are better than one, as the saying goes (but n+k heads are not
necessarily better than n -- cf. Brooks, "Out Of The Tar Pit").

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Robert Dewar]

In article <mailman.981648127.21976.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>,
  comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org wrote:
>   Why that isn't enough? Why that "time-slicing" can't
simulate an effect of
> two cooperating persons?
>   (For another division you may imagine an Artistic Office
and Pure Enginerring
> Office, for example.)


I am completely puzzled by this, the problem with one person
trying to build a large house or a large program is that it
would take too long, how can the above hokey separation (which
can only slow things down) possibly help in the slightest to
make more hours in the day??? :-)


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Re: Latin, Shakespeare, and other irrelevant topics

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com> wrote:
>>   Why that isn't enough? Why that "time-slicing" can't simulate an effect of
>> two cooperating persons?
>>   (For another division you may imagine an Artistic Office and Pure Enginerring
>> Office, for example.)
>
>I am completely puzzled by this, the problem with one person
>trying to build a large house or a large program is that it
>would take too long, how can the above hokey separation (which
>can only slow things down) possibly help in the slightest to
>make more hours in the day??? :-)

Multiprocessing is not always a good thing. It is definitily good if you
typically should process multiple independent and impatient requests, which
happens when you are contacting with a naturally parallel environment.
But there is an obvious price - you need to allocate the resources for
synchronization and arbitration. That is equally true for computers and for
human teams.
  There are two different tasks: to build a program, and to introduce it
to the potential users, that is, to persuade them to adopt your product.
Although within some environments those tasks can be done concurrently, and
even help each other (as you continually demonstrate with the GNAT), they still
remain substantially different by their nature. In both tasks you have a
queue of particular problems, but the character of those queues is quite
different: for the 1st case (building a program) you have a queue with waiting
and the opportunities for various global optimizations (of the queue), while
for the 2nd case you have a queue with a very limited wait (a request leaves
the queue if it isn't serviced within some time interval).
  So, in the 1st case our main concern is complexity, while in the 2nd case
our main concerns are similar to those associated with the real-time processing
pattern. And my question was about the 1st case only, where one may sometimes
apply the quote: "he travels the fastest, who travels alone".

By the way, one method to make more hours in the day is to slow down the Earth
spinning -:)