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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9629eba26884d78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-08 16:44:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: signature like constructions Date: 8 Aug 2003 16:44:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3F337798.2030008@attbi.com> <0o57jvsu8svaarn54n1j7js0casiclfqhb@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.242.18.29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1060386246 26369 127.0.0.1 (8 Aug 2003 23:44:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Aug 2003 23:44:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41266 Date: 2003-08-08T23:44:06+00:00 List-Id: 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