Re: signature like constructions

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

>>> 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.
>
>What we count for "universal" is changing, depending on which problems
>are of "universal" concern.

Not so conformistic, I think. Perhaps you underestimate the generality and
deepness of the works of logicians and "founding fathers" of programming
(like Turing and other great names). I can agree that all their stuff may
seem somehow "basic only" at first sight, but this impression will quickly
fade and disappear if you try to make an alternative yourself.

>I give you a funny example. One student was unable to tell me how to
>calculate a distance between two points in cartesian co-ordinates! He
>naturally knew nothing about Euclidean distance, space etc. Now the
>most amazing thing. This student had successfuly modified a
>3D-simulation program in OpenGL! (:-))

No problem with that. Well, for a native English speaker the spoken language
appears before the written language, but for foreigner the sequence is usually
reverse. (For example. because of this I can communicate in written English
-- well, with many errors, but still usually succesfully -- but I can't say so
about my spoken English. So, an "phonetically illiterate" foreigner differs
radically from an illiterate native speaker -:) .

So for that you student. While for us the Euclidean distance appeared before
3D-simulation and OpenGL, for that student the sequence is opposite -- surely,
if he will continue his works with 3D-simulation and OpenGL, he inevitably
will learn about Euclidean distance, sooner or later.

>It is a catastrophe, would you say. Yes, but it is also a triumph of
>software developing tools.

No more than public success of some good book on cooking is a catastrophe for
biochemisrty -:)

> Let me foretell that new generations of
>programmes will even know nothing about arithmetics! (:-))

Well, there was a short novel about exactly that, by famous science fiction
writer Isaac Asimov. In fact, that was probably the first Asimov's novel
published in Soviet Union (in early sixties, I think), and it immediately made
Asimov well-known in Soviet scientific circles (at least among physicists).
In that novel, in far future the Earth is involved in endless war with another
civilization; on both sides humans forgot arithmetics long ago, and the war is
totally computerized; the problem is that the computers on both sides appeared
"synchronized" -- they develop and upgrade themselves at the same speed, so
nobody can win, and the war can't go to the end. The hero of the novel re-invents
arithmetics from scratch, and the President becomes happy with new perspective
-- to escape the deadlock and defeat the enemy using this non-conventional way.

>>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).
>
>This will stop nobody. There are much worse things people are doing,
>being well aware of the consequences.

Well, than it will crash. Don't worry -;) , just don't stay under it -:)

>
>>That's simple. Just the same reasons as for not to build a 100km-high tower.
>
>That tower is already built. Its name is internet! (:-))

Why do you think so? Do you think the same about radio, TV, phones? Perhaps
you were too much impressed by unprecedented freedom in Internet... well this
time is almost over, the freedom in Internet will surely decrease to a normal
level quite soon (although not so much as some governments dream now -- thanks
China -:).



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