Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >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.
>
> I did. I have many friends with children and most of them tried. Many
> of them did it hard. No success.

Probably they weren't aware of experintation technique. I guess they simply
tried to achieve an aim, not to discover significant factors, relations, and
stable system states. In particular, I suspect that they did not provide
equivalent external (for a food) conditions (spatial, temporal and mindset).

> >> 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.,
>
>Children known no such words. They just yell - mum, I want Donald's!

But there are parents who should know these words; children's knowledge is
irrelevant for meta-issues, children never operate at meta-level.

> >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.
>
> Why? Ada cannot prevent "C++ design". Also C++ does not enforce it
> that much.

Certainly Ada cannot prevent, and C++ does not enforce anything. The difference
is in what is presumed in language design and to which degree. If you follow
the language design assumptions then the language's design trade-offs will work
for you; otherwise they will work against you, and you will spend much effort
for overcoming various obstacles and will suffer from various inconveniences.

> Half-baked design is a result of half-baked programmes and uneducated
> managers.

I think, no. It is most often a result of substantially incomplete problem
statement and incompetence (of the team) in problem domain.

> This is mostly because of the amount of projects developed
> in C++. Should Ada be used instead, by same programmers led by same
> managers, the result would be much same.

Yes, I agree with that.

> The adavantages of Ada
> appears at a definite level of competence, and only when extensive
> methods of software development are replaced by intensive ones.

I do not think that most of advantages of Ada are related to the skills in
software development. I believe that they are related to compentence in problem
domain. (But if the problem domain itself is the software development then
well, the software development skills are naturally most significant in the case.)

> >>Training is essential in understanding music.
> >
> >Generally, no. Good popular music do not (and should not) require any
> >special training.
>
> I meant rather simple things. For instance, "don't chew, when you hear
> music". (:-))

I tend to disagree with this rule in the form it was presented.  I think that
a proper rule should mention not music in general, but specific circumstances,
which involves other people. Well, I have no habit of chewing, but I certainly
want an opportunity to hear music in my kitchen, drinking coffee and smoking.

> >> >> >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.
>
> Yet, it gone and the empire collapsed.

Yes, so what? Why not to repeat? Final collapse doesn't matter, it will be
somewhere in future and perhaps another generation will deal with it.

> >And note that Western (educated) public admired Orwell's
> >"1984" not just because of some analogies with Stalinism.
>
> They welcomed Stalin

What? Are you implying that they also welcomed Franco and Mussolini? Do you
think that they dream that tomorrow Stalin or an equivalent will rule in their
own countries?

> and recently Saddam.

We certainly read different BBCs. I am not aware of those educated Western
people who welcomed Saddam. But at the same time I know that many people
were and are very dissatisfied with obvious lies of their governments about
the reasons for the recent war action. Notice, that the problem is not much
in the war action itself, but in that the possible true and valid reasons were
substitued by obvious lies. Why I use that strong term "obvious" here? Just
because I can *prove* that there were lies about WMD, and could prove that in
the time of preparations for the war action. And I'm quite sure that I was
not alone who understood how to prove that - the proof isn't too difficult,
just some experience in polical observation, and some history (40,,, and even
30 years of depth is enough).

> Sort of weakness for tyrants with moustache ...

Drop that stupid myth about moustache, better view an excellent documentary
film "Triumph of Will" ("Triumph Des Willens", Leni Riefenstahl, 1935). Even
in that film you will see that there was much more than moustache.

> >> > - 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.
>
> Sort of those flourishing now in Russia?

Sort of those flourishing now in many places/countries, and Russia is just
like many others in that respect, just not yet polished enough. Don't make
much illusions about so-called developed world... although the situation
varies from country to country, potential for resistance is different.

> If you mean *real* Academias,
> remember, that USSR Academia refused to expell Sakharov.

Don't overestimate that story. Remember, that Sakharov was very special case
for Communist authorities because of its supposed role in development of
Soviet nuclear weapon. Those times Communist authorites tried hard to remember
and reward scientists who substantially helped in weapon development, even if
those scientists later deviated from party line and even became dissidents (or
helped dissidents). Recall that even when Sakharov went in open opposition and
was publicly condemned, he was sent neither to trial and prison nor to psychiatric
hospital, but just in Gorky - quite big city and strong scientific center with
many intellectuals, under some sort of house arrest, but not severe. So, the
pressure on academics for expelling Sakharov was not strong, and when they
refused nobody insisted.

> True scientists are hard to manipulate.

Well, perhaps sometimes this true. Although history says nothing definite on
this matter. Anyway, the numbers of true scientists always are rather small,
so it does not help.

> Galileo was charged *after* he published a
> work revolting the curch. In USSR he would be never able to do so.

Generally no - although unlikely. It might happen in USSR that a heresy might
not be recognized in advance, and the book published - and only after a month,
a year (or even several years) the storm exploded and the book went into hiding.

> >even some perception of a freedom may be retained without losing
> >control.
>
> I'd recommend you read Feinman memoirs about his work under strict
> [army] control in the atomic project. Well, generals didn't lose a
> perception of control ...

Well, reading Feynman is almost always a pleasure, so I will read that if I
get it somehow (without spending much money for it). But I think I know that
matter well enough from old Soviet sources... not books, but private communications
- that was my childhood inside a fence, and some people around me were quite
good physisists, of the rank not much lower than Feynman's. I remember attemps
to guess how nuclear bullets are possible, short rumors about neutron bombs -
in early sixties.

> >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.
>
> Egh? How so. In my view USA is the last hope of humankind.

Well, there were episodes in recent century when USA was indeed the last hope
of our sort of civilization, and USA fulfilled that hope. And that may be
repeated once more, who knows. But that does not imply that particular serious
problems can't be originated and developed in USA. And that does not imply
that all people outside USA should be hopeful spectators only.

> >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).

> All is better than "do money".

No. It is worse. Because money is just ephemerical criteria, just commonly
agreed abstract notion, just place and role in the social system, and not a
way of perception of fundamental things and processes. Money is entirely human
and even entirely social matter, it exists only inside and because of human
civilization - so, one almost never can just "make money" - as a rule, he must
understand and do something other for that. So, money is just intermediate
entity, which generally doesn't isolate people from reality.



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