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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-14 16:24:46 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.cs.univ-paris8.fr!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexander E. Kopilovich" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 03:22:21 +0400 (MSD) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1081984933 76291 212.85.156.195 (14 Apr 2004 23:22:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:22:13 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from "Dmitry A. Kazakov" at Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:49:40 +0200 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p7 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7110 Date: 2004-04-15T03:22:21+04:00 Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > I knew no programmer who liked IBM assembler. You should a rare exception. Well, probably it is true - I am indeed a rare exception (although certainly far from unique) in that aspect. The cause is simple, I think - not many people had disasembled (mostly manually) enough IBM 360/370 code, not many people had to device and apply (succesfully -;) their own patches to OS/360 kernel, and in fact, not too many peoply were in position of system administrator with responsibilities of running 4 IBM-clone mainframes for mid-sized datacenter without any external professional support, being at the same time an active application programmer. In fact one tends to like "the native language" of the first machine, to which he had close access, and which he took seriously. Good qualities of the native languages of subsequent machines may be recognized and appreciated, but the first one (like first true love -:) remains forever. There was not too many programmers who had close access to IBM 360/370 mainframes - they were mostly system administrators (in Soviet Union they were called "system programmers" - without much justificaion -;) . But much more programmers had sufficiently close access to PDP-11; and the essense of applications that were typical for PDP-11 was usually more easily felt by programmers (than in the case of mainframes). > >> As I said, the problem is that the marked, beloved or not, does not work > >> well for software. > > > > Hm, but for what is works better? For science? For fims? For literature? > > You have admitted that there is a problem. Certainly, there is a problem. And there isn't (and cannot be) a general solution. In fact, there usually can't be a *solution* at all; instead of solution there will (as a rule) be a struggle - in some form, one or another - and the result will usually be not a solution, but a decision or win. > >> This is the only reason why even less beloved government > >> should intervene. Because software is essential to the future of > >> humankind. > > > > So you think (applying the same logic) that government should intervene in > > science, > > Doesn't it? Or do you think that space program is sponsored by Microsoft? "intervene" isn't a synonym for "sponsor"; when the government sponsors then it is taxpayers who actually are sponsoring, but if the govenrment *intervene* - it may well be the government indeed. As for government sponsoring, why do you (apparently) believe that the government will chose right projects for its sponsoring more often than wrong - not just fruitless, but harmful ones (harm may be easily produced by unfair competition to good projects). > Then you should probably know that OS/2 was better than Windows. How your > theory would explain its fault? OS/2 was certainly better than Windows 3.1/3.11 (but it required more costly computer) or Windows 95/98 (except of nomenclature of supported devices, that is, except device drivers - which was significant for many users). But I can't say whether it was really better than reasonably matured Windows NT (say, 4.0). > >> >> > There are much more important issues in the case. For > >> >> > example, will be car vendors required to publish full sources of the > >> >> > software used in their cars? > >> >> > >> >> What for? To laugh at? > >> > > >> > There are enough people in the world who know cars and at the same have > >> > some programmer skills. Some of them may become interested in studying > >> > those sources (of their own car's software, for example). It may > >> > constitute very significant resource for finding remaining bugs and > >> > glitches. > >> > >> So the system of that complexity should be controlled by a crowd of > >> hobbists? > > > > Controlled? Is GNAT controlled by the crowd of hobbyists who have an easy > > opportunity to read its sources? > > > > But anyway, in the case of cars, I'd like to tell you that in that crowd > > of hobbyists, easily can happen people who are more skilled in software, > > and even in complex software, than the software engineering personnel that > > developed the car's software. Those skilled people may have an interesting > > reason to look at the sources: they may own the car. > > Ah, now I have understand your scientical theory of how it should be done. > Ignorant, uneducated personnel will write rubbish being well paid for that. > Highly qualified people in their spare time (after a day of sweeping > streets, I suppose) will analyse their work for free. The rest is still a > bit in clouds. Should they send their analysis to the managers? I am afraid > that if that would distract managers from playing golf, they could get > angry. Why send it those managers? Put it on website, send it to approriate forum, and discuss with others interested in that topic. It is enough. It will be mass-media who will translate the analysis to the managers of appropriate managers, if there will be anything potentially interesting and significant. > > Just as Boeing > > engineer may become interested in some construction details of a small > > piston single airplane, which he owns. Imagine that, say, a Cisco engineer > > or former DEC engineer becomes suspecting that some sporadic trouble in > > his own car is caused by a software glitch. > > ... > > > Then, there are graduate > > students (EE and CS), and some part of them are already better skilled > > then some part of that car software development personnel - and they also > > often own cars. > > It seems that you do not understand the complexity of the system. It seems that you do not understand the complexity and abilities of free people society regarding an investigation and testing of a relatively stable system. I understand that the system is complex enough (although not at the cutting edge of software complexity these times). But that complexity shows itself mostly (assuming a reasonably proper development process) in the process of creation of the system - that is, in the first phase of the lifecycle, while I'm talking about subsequent phases. > It cannot be analyzed afterwards. Why? Do you mean that in particular, car crashes will not be investigated any more if it will seem probable that the software functionality (not necessary a malfunction) was a contributing factor to the crash? Or you mean that only specs will be accessible for such an investigation, even if it the real behaviour of the car apparently contradicted the specs? > To create such a system you have do it in the > framework of a very strict development procedure. I said absolutely nothing about any involvement in the process of creating such a system. Obviously, that process shouldn't and can't be made open to strangers in any sense. I'm talking about post-release part of each car model lifecycle. Alexander Kopilovich aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia