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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-09 04:35:00 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-041-105.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:34:25 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-041-105.arcor-ip.net (145.254.41.105) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1081510499 93293141 I 145.254.41.105 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6892 Date: 2004-04-09T13:34:25+02:00 List-Id: Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote: > Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > >> > Did you also lost faith in Pythagorean theorem after studying >> > non-Euclidian and differential geometries? I mean, do you believe now >> > that relation between sides of a triangle depends upon luck only? -:) >> >> Science is not a subject of belief! (:-)) > > It is, and always was. Do you, for example, believe in intermediate boson? > Or do you believe that Universe is 7-dimensional? Or do you believe in Big > Bang and in some estimate of the age of Universe (either from modern > physics or from the Bible)? Ah, no theory can be proved, it can be only disproved. So yes one can only believe that a particular theory is true. But that is not science. It is philosophy. > Well, you may think that Pythagorean theorem > is true for some ideal triangles, but do you believe that real triangles, > which you can meet in nature, resemble those ideal ones? See above. BTW, in the philosophy I believe in (:-)), there is no real triangles. >> > At least one major technical issue is relevant - it is anticipated >> > lifecycle for a product. >> >> ... only if that is shorter than the "lifecycle" of a manager. > > So the problem is that too many managers prefer *own* short lifecycles, > that is, they are oriented to frequent change of their job. The problem is that the system rewards this. >> Small noise on the input produces an enormous random output. All that is >> summarized by one short word *luck*. > > Luckism is a good cover for various calculated clandestine actions. The hidden parameter theory? (:-)) I am on Bohr's side! > Hm, it seems that you have too much contacts with managers - that you > phrase sounds too familiar -;) . Yes I do. This is why I have no illusions. (:-() >> UNIX was a great set-back in OS architecture, design and ideology. [... blaming good OSes for "having no curly brackets" ...] > that will perform better for the same user base. So I think that in your > above (quoted) sentence the word "disaster" should be related to > "spreading" but not to "Windows". that is, the catastrophe you mentioned > is the fact of access of millions of users to computers, and not a > particular OS that provided that access. Isn't it a Marxist's way to blame innocent people for their inability to work with our "excellent" software? "How they dare open E-mail attachments! Any PC-user shall have a license for using it. Let's educate them, better, grow a new Windows-man!" >> If someone could esimate the losses resulting in this twin disaster! > > Yes, I can: it's a loss of virginity of masses regarding computers. No it is vasting enormous resources for nothing. It is real, physical catastrophes yet to come as more and more things become controlled by software. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de