Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >> >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.
>
> Right, but the language design assumtions do not influence the
> software design approach in a direct way.

In practice there are always expectations about future implementation opportunities
and problems, and those expectations usually influence design substantially.
But what is more significant, if you aren't familiar with the problem domain,
then programming (or software engineering) terminology necessarily becomes your
internal design language; general notions (like List, Queue, etc.) usually
aren't enough, and for the rest part of the design you will use either forms
from a programming language or their imprecise glimpses.

> I do not see why it should
> be more difficult to make incomplete products in Ada.

Because it takes much more expertise in the language for making useful imprecise
glimpses of the language's forms in Ada than in C++. Just becase Ada was designed
primarily for use in environments where competence in the problem domain can
be assumed (and therefore those things should no be needed), while C++ inherits
all its basic OO machinery from universal modelling language (Simula-67).

> >> 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.
>
> These are the consequences.

Sometimes, but far from always. Quite often people that are generally educated
and sufficiently competent in some problem domain(s) are throwed to other problem
domains (in which they are incompetent) without any preliminary training. And
those people will have no other choice but to start with some vague model.

> >> 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.
>
> There are simple physical reasons of human ear construction behind
> this rule. (:-))

Being slightly suprised. I consulted a specialist in hearing, and she explained
me that yes, chewing inhibits perception of sound to some degree, but increasing
volume of the sound usually conpensates for that. For example (she told me),
if you are listening radio or TV in foreign language you may need to increase
the volume if you are chewing. So, a proper rule, perhaps, will be: "don't
chew when you are hearing a kind of music, to which you are not accustomed".

> >> >> >> >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.
>
> Because the stock is empty now.

You certainly mean Russian stock here; but I wrote not about particularly
Russia as it pertains to the current and future situation. I suppose you do
not think that the Western stock and generally worldwide stock is empty.

> >Do you think that they dream that tomorrow Stalin or an equivalent will rule in their
> >own countries?
>
> Probably yes.

So, you think that they all were very stupid.

> BBC World always tried to
> represent Saddam and US as morally equivalent sides. They promptly
> passed Saddam's propaganda without any analysis or comments.

I can only repeat that we certainly read different BBC Worlds. 

> >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.
>
> Which appeared to be the single possible way. Whom to blaim?

> >film "Triumph of Will" ("Triumph Des Willens", Leni Riefenstahl, 1935).
>...
> >Even in that film you will see that there was much more than moustache.
>
> To be like others, to share everything with others, to vibrate with
> others in an extatic "consensus"...

No, that isn't an interesting part, it is too well-known thing (for that I'd
better recommend American film "Inherit the Wind"). What is really interesting
in "Triumph Des Willens", it is Hitler Youth and Labor Front reviews with
Hitler's speeches on them, and excellent Hitler's and especially Hess's performance
as actors (Hitler's mostly at various reviews and Hess's at the congress).
Hitler's speeches on those (Youth and Labor) reviews are very good public
presentations of important aspects of low-level integration ideology. And Hess
looks as true soul of that version of national-socialism during its takeoff phase.

> >Sakharov was very special case
> >for Communist authorities because of its supposed role in development of
> >Soviet nuclear weapon.
>
> Huh, Trotzky's role in grounding Soviet Army didn't save him from
> ice-axe. 

First, there was another (and very different) phase of regime; second, Trotzky
was not scientist (or otherwise high-ranking specialist), but politician and
once direct competitor; and note that even Trotzky was not killed in USSR -
he was first sent out, and killed after almost decade.

> >> >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.
>
> At least, they could stop accusing America in the faults of their own!

What do you mean - which faults, and who is accusing?

> While doing mathematics isolates?

What isolates is losing the sense of abstraction. It is not too harmful while
it isn't overwhelmingly widespread among the educated people - because a link
is usually possible via a neighbour. But if it becomes overwhelmingly widespread
than isolation actually takes effect.

> Actually money were invented to isolate reality.

Not isolate, but rather virtualize somehow. 

> To exchange something real for something having only an imaginary value.

For that there must be some degree of confidence in that value, and people
usually monitor the correspondence one way or another, and adjust that their
confidence accordingly.



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