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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 390228499 References: <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6sjnlu$83l$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6spia2$1s36$1@prime.imagin.net> <35F06D6A.91A3D34E@s054.aone.net.au> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-09-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <35F06D6A.91A3D34E@s054.aone.net.au> Loryn Jenkins writes: > It is much more to the point that language is an instrument which > *construes reality*. It is quite inapropriate to claim that thoughts can > be organised outside of the semiotic systems that construct it. Many of the regular contributers to this group will disagree with this statement, some of us more than others. There are people who "think within the lines," and cannot possibly have a thought which cannot be expressed in their native tounge. Exceptional people can think new thoughts and extend the language to fix. This produces progress and also evolution of languages. But the reason I reacted to this statement is that compiler designers and especially language developers use techniques which allow them to use one language to manipulate another. The simplest example of this is BNF, used to define the grammars for many programming languages. During the debate in Salem over the notation to be used in Ada 9X to define classes, each side had only to use one or two slides to define their proposal, the rest of the time could be used to describe the anticipated effects of the notation on the thinking of the programmers using it. (Neither proposal was "more powerful," both could be used to create exactly the same class structures, the argument was about the impact of the chosen notation on the thinking processes of the users.) In fact, many of the debates that made it to one of the workshops were exactly in this style, such as the names of the operations in Ada.Finalization. (Result, Initialize, Adjust, Finalize.) -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...