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: 2003-09-17 09:00:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:08:28 +0200 Message-ID: References: <9keolvs9tjbbbuv1ndnsr69af7mtddemhk@4ax.com> <8mgdmv08eaabv53vv5sofud2k40lbo0fdh@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1063814429 26023697 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42619 Date: 2003-09-17T18:08:28+02:00 List-Id: On 16 Sep 2003 20:15:52 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander Kopilovitch) wrote: >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. Can common people see angels? (well, before they get too much beer) Nevertheless, do not even try to attack a religion and its priests? All religion? This is no, no. Because, public would not accept this. Hollywood is just a mirror. >> 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. It depends on who will pay! (:-)) >> > 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. Which does not imply that it fulfills the mission. It is comparable with choosing a medicine against baldness. >> 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? Because I *know* that highly likely the buyers' preferences are as ungrounded as the manager's opinon. >> *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). Unfortunate example, in 5 years, MS will ship a new version of Visual Basic, fully incompatible with the present one. So far, the goal of MS is to maximize the maintenace costs of those who are using MS software. >All after all, it is usually much harder to say what exactly the program >should do than actually write that program. Right! (:-)) >> 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 -:) A rich one, because it will suck more taxes from us, to produce more regulations! (:-)) >> >> 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 -:) . Alas >> 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, Sounds like money-laundering! (:-)) --- Regards, Dmitry Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de