Re: Problem space and solution space

[aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch)]

amir@iae.nsk.su (Amir Yantimirov) wrote:
>Being in problem space is not always an advantage. Very often solution
>space is magnitudes more stable and solid then continuously moving
>problems.

Beautiful frankness. indeed. One question, though: do you think that this
approach is equally applicable to other areas of science/technology?
  By the way, I see, you are from nsk.su, so you have many scientific
institutions near you. Do they permanently reproduce the same "stable and
solid solutions", not bothering themselves with annoying specifics of
"continuously moving problems"?

> So "solution side" parts of problem-solution bridge became
>more useful and reused.

Surely. Use Microsoft solutions (if you found them solid and stable), as many
people do, and be happy. And avoid Ada language, because it is designed not
for your programmer's pleasure and happiness, but for dealing with real-world
problems, which are, sad to say, continuously moving.

>The prime example of solution space thing is all sorts of
>container/collections libraries, generic or common root ones. So the
>lack of such standard libraries in Ada is a prooth of Ada's problem
>orientiness. :))

And what is your guess, why these important things weren't included even in
Ada 95 standard? Do you think that Ada language designers severely underestimated
their importance?


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia