Re: Philosophers

[firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org>]

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, John G. wrote:

> However, I would like to ask you if you've considered the phenomenon
> of "Computer Calvinism" which has rooted itself so firmly in the terra
> of CS. For example, the C language itself was slapped together by a
> couple of hackers so that they could use an old computer banished to
> the depths. 

Not even close. Have you ever read "The Development of the C Language,"
by Dennis Ritchie? If not, don't go make incorrect statements about its
origins. First, it was not 'slapped together'; it followed a long and
logical evolution of languages; from BCPL to B to C. Second, the PDP-11 was 
certainly not old at the time, it was quite new, and was not 'banished to the 
depths' of anything. Third, the machine C originated on is hardly indicitive 
of anything at all.

> Since then, C has attained mythological status, requiring the invention of 
> a bible, priests, and a holy church. 

If so, I've been skipping church for many many years, and have yet to read
the bible. Darn.

> There are practical benefits to this sort of fanaticism, but the primary 
> goal seems to be to take all the fun out of it! 
> 
> Where in the standard does it mention, or even _hint_, at just having
> *fun*? 

The standard is a technical document that describes what C -is-. It is up
to the -programmer- to apply that language in an enjoyable (to him, at
least) fashion.

> It's as though fun is something which should appeal only to
> lesser beings, while those who desire to join the church of ANSI must
> treat programming as a soul-consuming avocation. Sure, there are times
> to be serious. But there should also be time for play, as well.
> IMNSHO, creativity feeds upon chaos and irrational emotions, not upon
> endless lists of rules, and rules _about_ the rules.

There must be rules, or it isn't fun for anybody. I certainly respect the
rules the ISO standard has laid out, but I do not consider coding to be
'a soul-consuming avocation.' Imagine if there were no 'holy book' of C;
nothing to which programmer's could point and say, 'That's not correct.'
Personally, I don't consider slogging through lots of code that uses a
few non-portable constructs to save a few lines of a bit of thinking to
be fun. 'Play' can only occur after the rules have been established and
are followed. Name a sport or game that doesn't have rules to it! I bet
you won't find one.

> It seems that the desire to impose order upon computer programmers has
> resulted in programmers wanting to _become_ the computer. 

Eww. I wouldn't want to be a computer. -They- love repitition, for example,
while I absolutely loath it.

> Personally, I think computing is a neat trick, and amusing in an odd, 
> obsessive sort of way, but hardly anything to brag about. 

Well, computing being somewhat of a skill, there will be those who will,
inevitably, brag about their prowess.

> It's not as though computers represent a step in human evolution. 

Indeed.

> Even the ideas which CS inspires do not appear to represent anything 
> particularly deep. CS borrows heavily from other fields of thought, but 
> gives back little.

What do you expect? Telling a computer what to do is not a particularly
'deep' process, and isn't likely to inspire anything 'deep.'

> CS might be said to be a wonderful example of applied mathematics, but
> has its existence expanded the ability of the human mind? In essence,
> I think not. 

That doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile to persue.

> Even AI -- as popularly concieved -- seems doomed to linger in the realm 
> of fantasy.

I hope you are right. But that's a whole 'nother post.

-- 
The FAQ, like the C standard (and, for that matter, the Bible and the US
Constitution) is often used as an authority by clueless people who don't
seem to have read it, at least not with any level of comprehension.
    -- Billy Chambless <billy@cast.msstate.edu> in comp.lang.c