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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-23 19:52:08 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: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: 23 Sep 2003 19:52:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <8mgdmv08eaabv53vv5sofud2k40lbo0fdh@4ax.com> <6roimvg39s8h5ba64u9pn0trsa4d3u4kai@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.33.245.73 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064371927 25940 127.0.0.1 (24 Sep 2003 02:52:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Sep 2003 02:52:07 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42840 Date: 2003-09-24T02:52:07+00:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > Oh, I observed many children. As a rule, they prefer McDonald's to > normal food, Milka/Snickers to good chocolate, coca-cola to other > drinks. I guess they have no (or little) choice: the environment matters more than a food. Give them to choose between standard McDonals food and normal food, but in exactly the same environment, and do that several times - and then observe what they choose. > Compare it with software developers, which definetely prefer > C++ and Java to Ada. You can spend all your life trying to explain > them that McDonald's or C++ is bad, but they still will. Reflexes are > stronger than any explanations. Reflexes don't matter here. The situation is indeed somehow similar to the McDonalds and children: an environment matters more then a food, and there is usually little or no choice. Besides all that things like availability, familiarity, costs etc., there is a fundamental obstacle: Ada presumes full and thorough design, while neither C++ nor Java don't. You can build some half-prototype/half-product in C++ or Java, and hope to complete (somehow) the rest of design and then the real application later. But it will be much more difficult to follow that way in Ada. And very often during initial stage of a project any future savings don't matter much, just because it is quite unclear whether the project will have any future. >Training is essential in understanding music. Generally, no. Good popular music do not (and should not) require any special training. Note also, that a part of Mozart's music and even some of Beethoven's music do not require any special training for undoubtful appreciation. > Understanding of good music also requires some creative efforts. I can't judge for so-called "serious" music, but I believe that those efforts should not be called "creative", but just "imaginative". Because those efforts, as a rule, do not create anything persistent, but only short-lived phantoms or moods. > >> >Given current circumstances regarding intellectual property, I can't resist > >> >to ask question: if knowledge, rather than money, is a measure of success, > >> >doesn't this mean that knowledge became a property in that science-oriented > >> >society? -;) > >> > >> In my dilettantish opinion, there is a difference, knowledge is > >> difficult to separate from its carrier. > > > >But a carrier can be severely restricted (if not imprisoned... or even killed > >after he shared his knowledge with another person) > > It would be too expensive. If you mean Stalin's methods, remeber that > he was looting the potential built before him. So what? You certainly can't say that we have (or will have) too little potential for looting. And note that Western (educated) public admired Orwell's "1984" not just because of some analogies with Stalinism. > > - by state or corporate > >secrecy/security rules, copyright or patent laws (don't forget that copyright > >and patent rights may be sold and bought). > > Copyright on knowledge, what is that? You can probably patent 2+2=4, > but how can you prevent me from using this knowledge? I mean to build > an *effective* legal system protecting such patents? How to prove that > i=sqrt(-1) is based on 2+2=4? Imagine a court, where such case could > be brought in! I can easily imagine such a court. All judges will be not only graduated from well-known universities, but have Ph.D. also, and perhaps will be members of some Academias. No problem with that, and never been. (Yes, certainly there will be dissidents also, of both kinds - persecuted and tolerated). > >In such a situation the real measure > >of success is not carrying knowledge, but having rights and/or control of it. > >Not much difference from money, I think. > > > There is a difference, you cannot control it without killing it. > > Science is rooted in freedom. This is a popular slogan, no more. How much freedom had Copernicus? Galileo? Newton? Gauss? Fermat? They all had some, quite little freedom, and apparently had no need for much more for their scientific purposes. Perhaps you mean not individual, but collective scientific efforts. Well, for that some extended freedom is actually needed. Well, "Brave New World" was quite scientific... Collective activity can be controlled more easily than individual one, even some perception of a freedom may be retained without losing control. One serious problem of our time is that USA, being the Land of Engineers, can't agree with that science and engineering aren't the same, and consistently tries to convert science to engineering. And with huge influence from USA this becomes influental tendency worldwide. They want to "do math", then they will want to "do physics", "do biology" etc, An attempt to achieve harmony between "do" and "think" inside an individual, as a standard (for educated people). A stupid version of this idea was tried in exUSSR and failed beautifully, long before the collapse of USSR (but nevertheless, it contributed to that collapse). USA's approach is certainly much cleverer tactically, and much more cautious - so, hopefully its future failure will be more graceful. (Just a remark about relations between social architecture designs and requirements for circutry base, not that much off-topic as it probably seems -;) . Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia