Re: Philosophers

[rudejohn@ptd.net (John G.)]

firewind <firewind@metroid.dyn.ml.org> wrote:

>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.

*hehe* Okay, I was fishing and you took the bait most admirably.
Thankyou. However, I am always suspicious of the ability of history to
rewrite itself. Sometimes the truth is recast in order to live up to
expectations. <shrug> Oh well.

>> 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.

   Your timely response certainly speaks of your devotion to the
Church of C (hereafter referred to as the CoC.) Methinks it a safe bet
that you are quick to follow the pronouncements of the Priests of the
Standard and their novitiates. And please don't tell me that you're
not influenced by the what you read on clc; why else would you be
here? Or have you been cast out?  };o)

>> 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.

   IMNSHO, the document in question -- arrived at by committee, no
less -- does not describe what C -is- because the document _defines_
it. There is a difference between description and definition.
Description presupposes existence; that what is being described exists
without, or possibly even in spite of, the description. Definition,
however, is an entirely different matter. Definition is a process of
creation, not observation.

   Has the Bullshit-O-Meter gone off yet? <g>

>> 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. 

Hm, I feel the urge to salute my terminal. <g>

But in a sense and to a degree, yes, I agree. But where is the
dividing line between "enough" and "too much" with respect to
rule-making? I know, let's make a rule about it! 

>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.

   Ah, but in what sense do you mean, "That's not correct." Are you
referring to "not correct" in the sense of a syntactical error, or an
error in logic which doesn't turn up right away, or in the sense of
programming successfully in an unconventional manner? For example, if
you choose a certain coding style, do you consider all other styles to
be "incorrect"? Human nature seems to lead to a distinct
stratification of the world into right and wrong, good and bad. This
binary thinking hounds us like a plague.

>> 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.

Although there are certain activities which are highly repetitious yet
quite pleasurable when practiced with an enthusiastic partner. Like
ping-pong. <g>

>> 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.

   I was addressing computing in a more or less nebular fashion, not
as an individual skill. CS is a demanding and challenging discipline,
of that I'm certain. And yet, if someone from a distant planet were
able to ask you, "What makes you human?", would you wave that
well-thumbed copy of K&RII in the air and proclaim, "I can program in
C!" We'd probably never hear from them again, and I wouldn't blame
them one bit (pun intended.)

>> 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.'

Well, you might have argued about the use of computers to "prove"
mathematical theorems using a brute-force approach, e.g., the map
coloring theorem. The debate over what constitues a proof in human
terms is really quite fascinating. For example, if a computer "proves"
a theorem which no human being could prove simply because of the sheer
bulk of computation required, has that theorem been proven? How can we
know? Are we redefining truth as a thing of consensus? Perhaps we will
eventually define truth as something beyond the grasp of a mere human
being. Perhaps we will relegate truth to the machine. Hey, don't we
already do that?

>> 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.

Of course not. That wasn't the point. And while I'm the first to admit
that my grasp of C is exceptionally meager, that doesn't make the
pursuit of C as a hobby any less enjoyable. It's just what the doctor
ordered for programming on my ancient laptop.

>> 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.

Darn.

>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

   I have never used the FAQ, the C standard, the Bible, or the US
Constitution as sources of authority, nor do I claim to have ever read
them with any level of comprehension. Have a nice day!

John G.