Re: signature like constructions

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> This is a question of balance between understanding of the problem and
> understanding of the software tools used to solve it. From the dawn of
> computers to present day, the first component prevailed,

And certainly will always prevail. Essentially, by definition: if the software
world becomes more significant than traditional real world -:) then there will
be just new class of the problems - concerning the software world, and no more
than that. So we'll still look at the problems at first.

> allowing to implement "everything [problem] in anything [language]".

No, this is too inexact statement: even 3 decades ago it was not possible
to implement real-time control program in RPG language. So, not in "anything",
but in "any universal language" - and with this more precise wording the
statement becomes trivially true.

> But in a long-term perspective, I am talking about 20-100 years,

20 years ago no one can predict our current power of computing technology and
its presence everywhere in just 2000. Given that the explosion still continues,
how can you guess about 20 and even 100 future years?

> the balance
> will definitely change, otherwise we will be unable to maintain the
> complexity of software [not the algorithms, note].

What we will unable to maintain will certainly crash. And we will not make
such too complex software any more (after several attempts with sound failures).
That's simple. Just the same reasons as for not to build a 100km-high tower.

> It will be a
> virtual reality with its own virtual problems, if you wish. (:-))

Well, virtual reality is not so big challenge actually. Even nanotechnologies
constitute substantially bigger challenge, because they may easily ruin much
more our "axioms of impossible", which may appear vital for our implicit logic.



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