Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> > numbers of "licensed" scientists increased greatly - number of real scientists
> > increased substantially, but at the same time number of pseudo-scientists
> > skyrocketed much higher. After several decades of such proliferation of
> > pseudo-scientists (and even quasi-sciences), common people became aware of this
> > effect... and I don't think that it is Hollywood to be blamed - it was
> > behaviour of those pseudo-scientists in real life that disclosed their presence
> > and their numbers.
>
> Actually a typical Hollywood scientist is rather opposite to what you
> describe. He is very skilled. He concentrates exclusively on his work.
> He is absolutely amoral and often asexual. He wears dirty clothes and
> spectacles. His activity could lead the humankind to a catastophe, if
> there were no main hero, who crushes scientists's lower jaw in a final
> apotheosis.

It isn't opposite at all. That Hollywood's type you described is not for
a human character, it's simply a personification of "bad part" of science.
I didn't see that Hollywood's production myself, but from what you said
I may conclude that except of dirty clothes (which probably does not belong
to the image, but is a form of direct message, that is, label "BAD"), this
image is an acceptable popular presentation of the prototype. And I can't
blame Hollywood for not representing a "good part" of science - just because
it is an impossible job: you can show a good guy who incidentally is a scientist,
but you can't show an image of good science on movie; common people can't see
good science directly, without a mediation of an engineering.

> >>>> Mission critical software in Visual Basic;
> >>>
> >>>I must confess that I'm sick and tired of those words "mission critical".
> >>>What a mission?
> >>
> >>One of the program.
> >
> >It is not always clear which mission has a program. I think I saw more than
> >one case where different people have different opinions about the program's
> >mission.

> Such programs should not be even developed. That's a part of the
> problem, developing whithout an understanding what the program should
> do.

Hm. Suppose we both agree to go to a bar and continue discussion there. And I
want coffee, while you want beer (I don't know your preferences, but your
e-mail is in German domain -:) . What is our joint mission? My view is that
the mission is to get coffee for me, your beer is not significant, but only
acceptable; your view is exactly opposite - for you the mission is to get beer
for you, and my coffee is not significant, but only acceptable. Should we
delay our move until we can reach consensus about the mission? It depends
on our expectations about the probability of a conflict, which may emerge if
it appears that particular bar can provide coffee, but not beer, or vice versa.

> > But anyway, I asked about particular mission - just curious to hear
> >concrete enough example of this kind of a blame.
>
> Consider MS-Word. Its mission to help in writting documents. Does it?
> (:-))

Certainly does, I have huge experimental data for that statement. Consider
Russian picture: practically all existed word processors were available there
practically for free, so competition among them was as honest as one can dream.
And MS Word got clear and undoubtful victory.

But I don't agree with you about the MS Word's mission -;) . For me, its
mission is to help in writing, printing and exchanging documents. And the
latter is very valuable. I think that without RTF there would be much less
chances for MS Word to succeed.


> > There may be trivial reasons. For example, your customer wants to have an
> > opportunity to modify some pieces of the software in some future, without your
> > assistance; and he reasonably thinks that it will be some support for Visual
> > Basic in the future, and there will be non-expensive workforce for that; at the
> > same time he is not sure that there will be comparable conditions for any other
> > language, which is equally affordable now. It's enough, isn't it? Notice, that
> > is is *his* territory - manager's, and not yours, programmer's. He may or may
> > not take consequences from that his decision, but you, as a contractor, most
> > probably will not.
>
> Neither of the reasons you mentioned are absolute.

Yes. But nevertheless they are reasons.

> And the language of implementation is *my* territory.

Not necessary. Here is more strong argument for this (as you aren't convinced
by previous ones): the manager sees an opportunity to sell the software to 
some third parties, and he thinks that it will be much easier to do if the
software will be in Visual Basic. He may be wrong, but how can you know that,
as you do not know perspective buyers and there preferences?

> *His* territory is to write the
> requrements of *what* the program should do.

There may be requirements that aren't in your competence as a contract programmer
- for example, perspective for maintenance 5 years ahead... unless your contract
explicitly includes your responsibility for that (which is improbable for
too small contractors).

All after all, it is usually much harder to say what exactly the program
should do than actually write that program.

> The common problem is
> that this part of work is never done, while *how* to write programs
> will be proclaimed on each corner, by people, having qualification and
> knowledge of a bath-house attendant!

Well, both parties want more freedom for themselves and are willing to impose
restrictions on the partner. Quite usual, isn't it?

Generally, I don't think that fraction of competent and responsible professionals
is much higher for programmers than for managers... these times.

> If the government reguates the speed limit on a high way, it should
> also regulate the way the software is developed in the fields of
> common interest.

Poor, poor government -:)

> >> You mean that any popularity would make Ada worse? (:-))
> >
> >If you mean popularity among professional programmers than perhaps, almost Yes
> >(replacing "any" by "radical raise of"). But if you mean popularity among
> >scientists and engineers - than No.
>
> Well, didn't Jesus save us? (:-))

I must disappoint you - you are too optimistic in this issue -:) . Salvage of
mankind as a whole did not include particular implications, for which you are
apparently hoping -:) .

> >> > > Where you saw cheap subcontractors? (:-))
> >> >
> >> >Did you mean that you for some reason can't use individuals as subcontractors?
> >> >(Otherwise I can't get this your question.)
> >>
> >> We cannot use cheap individuals! (:-)) To find a skilled programmer
> >> with a permission to work in EU and to pay him/her a salary of a
> >> supermarket cashier ...
> >
> >I can't believe that you aren't aware of "virtual contractors".
>
> Actually, I am not.

So, you have an unaccounted resource.

> How virtual is the software written by virtual contractors? (:-))

Virtual contractors typically do not write software at all (for their functionality
as virtual contractors) - just because of that they are cheap. Sometimes they
participate in writing the software, but only some smaller part of it,



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