Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 15:10:47 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus
<sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
>: On Mon, 3 May 2004 12:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Georg Bauhaus
>: <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote:
>
>:>: Engineering is a product of science. Without science it is called
>:>: craftsmanship.
>:> 
>:>You are free to make this distinction, and I am free to call it stuck-up.
>: 
>: I do not want to undermine engineering.
>
>I do not want to undermine craftsmanship. Sometimes engineers work
>as craftspeople and vice versa. Sometimes craftspeople have domain
>knowledge superior to engineers', and vice versa. Sometimes both
>know much/little about related sciences that might even be unkown
>to the scientists.

No engineer cannot know more than a scientist, because any engineer is
a scientist when he/she *knows* something.

Craftspeople may only have practical experience, be trained etc, but
not know. When alchemists started to know, they became chemists.

>: Ah, here we return to the starting point. Something is badly wrong
>: with how we are dealing with creators.
>
>It works for many. You have to explain to them and to us what
>exactly is wrong.

Science and arts are stagnating and highly unpopular. The first jet
aircraft was built about 1945, less than in 20 years we were in space.
In ten years we were on the Moon.
 
>: It can, but why should everything depend on lobbying?
>
>It shouldn't. Can you name an alternative?

No. But if someone could, would you be ready to accept any?

>:  This is why I said that the state
>: should intervene and tune the game rules.
>
>But those who intervene to find a solution to the problem
>of tuning the game rules play another game doing so, which has its
>own set of rules, so we'd need another crowd tuning the rules
>of that game, which needs to be controlled by a third crowd tuning
>the rules of the second game, and...

Yes.

>(As a matter of fact, tuning the rules does take place, but
>consider how it takes place.)
>
>If you cannot name an absolute point of reference, this leads to
>a classical problem.  Justifying politics is lost in recursion
>because there are no scientific axioms to stop it.
> Enter Ideology, enter Belief, enter Knot-Cutting-Sword.

Yes.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de