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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: clines@delete_this.airmail.net (Kevin Cline) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/05/06 Message-ID: <978312A1F7E892FA.65E9443A2651231A.2F79B86BA594FA84@library-proxy.airnews.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239670584 References: <5ih6i9$oct$1@waldorf.csc.calpoly.edu> <3359e813.340466234@news.pacificnet.net> <5iri6b$jn0@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5k60au$gig@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5k8b0p$25f2@uni.library.ucla.edu> <5klamg$24da@uni.library.ucla.edu> X-Orig-Message-ID: <3372c7ce.10314200@news.airmail.net> Organization: INTERNET AMERICA NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library.airnews.net Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: jmartin@cs.ucla.edu (Jay Martin) wrote: >If generalize to exponential problem => stop. >If have exponential problem => try to simplify/restrict problem to non-exponential probem. >If have exponential problem => pull approximating heuristic program out of ass or try a > some search techniques like simulating annealing. > >Do you need a PHD in CS theory to do this? Probably not. It helps a lot for the "try some search techniques" part. >>Or, if >>you know what you are doing you can, with little trouble, solve an >>NP-complete problem. For example, Ada compilers are required to solve >>bin packing problems. That's interesting. Why? >>In general, the bin packing problems the >>compiler sees are easy to solve, and if you go to the effort of >>embedding a large and difficult problem in your record representation >>clause, well compiling it might take a while. That's fine for a compiler, but there are lots of real applications where a reasonable solution is needed in reasonable time. >How much does this theory actually come up in real software >development? When it does how much can be easily pulled out of >standard references? Is it justified in Computer Science to only >concentrate on and worship theory in some pathetic case of "Physics >Envy" while basic software engineering research is not done and basic >SE skills are not taught contributing to the reason why the whole software >field to be a dispicable sewer? I think not. Actually, things are great in the software field. I can buy amazingly powerful and easy to use applications to run on an amazingly powerful computer that sits on my desk at home, all for only a couple weeks salary. Things have never been better. So what if lots of new S/W development efforts fail. 80% of all new restaurants close within a year. No one complains about a crisis in American cooking. There are still plenty of restaurants open.