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

["Alexander E. Kopilovich" <aek@VB1162.spb.edu>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >> It is merely the price scientists should pay for having an
> >> ability to do science.
> >
> >No, these days majority of professional scientists recognize all that not as
> >the price, but as the elements of more or less natural collaborative
> >environment. Althought you certainly may say (as some others do) that there
> >is no contradiction, as this collaborative environment is exactly the price
> >for having an ability to do science. And that is the key - "to do science".
> >If you want TO DO SCIENCE then this is The Way.
>
> Who defined The Way?
> Why is it the only way now?
> Is there any better way?

You seem to be very accustomed to language exercises - "please, ask several
questions concerning the topic of the phrase". I can't imagine another cause
for this your triplet of questions.

> >When the primary goal changes
> >from "to know" and "to understand" to "to do" then the natural form of
> >cooperation changes accordingly.
>
> It seems that you are considering all aspects of human activity as
> something God-given.

Well, I indeed consider all aspects of (collective or statistically visible)
human activity as heavily influenced and largely determined by the history
and current circumstances - natural, technological and social.

Whether that can or should be called "God-given" probably depend on particular
flavor of faith and on particular language tradition.

> Our science, law, market, highway striping and of
> course not to forget, MS-Word are as they are.

But they indeed are as they are, at least we see them that way.

But note that there are always alternatives - you may choose astrology instead
of astronomy, you may choose a criminal way instead of law-abiding way, you
may avoid highways by staying home or travelling on foot or by helicopter,
and of course not to forget you may choose StarOffice or Lotus Notes instead
of MS Word.

Actually there are many substantially different variants of almost any kind
of things at your disposal. You may choose a particular law by choosing the
country of residence - for example, you may lawfully use drugs or have several
wives around you. And even within a given flavor of the thing we often have
sub-variants - for example, for MS Word you can really choose between 97,
2000, 2002 and 2003 depending on your priorities and circumstances.

So what is really "given" is a diversity. Certainly there are mainstreams and
marginals at any given moment, but that should not distract us from sensing
diversity.

> If so then there is no basis for any discussion.

I don't know whether there is a basis for discussion, and if it is then what
is it.

But I'd like to note here that traditionally (until relatively recently)
science was about acquiring stable knowledge and understanding, and not about
redoing the world.

Returning to the word "God-given", I'd like to note that many of great
scientists (Newton, for an excellent example, and there are many others)
were very faithful in their religion, and for all signs they were true
believers in God, in Creator. And that did not contradict their scientific
investigations in any way. On the contrary, they seemed to think that it is
a God's will for humans to pursue understanding of God's laws and God's
workings; perhaps some of them also believe that this way they become somehow
nearer to God.

> I do not care how a commertial software started.

Well, it is your choice, and perhaps it is a good choice for professional
employee. But I do care for that - because it is a valuable part of software
product's lifecycle.

> >> Because, it is clear that
> >> software cannot be produced by individuals,
> >
> >It is not clear for me. Can an individual produce a novel? Well, a big novel,
> >in several volumes? Of course not - because a paper must be produced (even
> >for original writing) then the book must be printed in several thousand
> >copies, than these books must be sold to thousands people.
>
> To clarify things, I did not mean neither network administrators nor
> those who are attaching labels on CDs.

How about various editors, proofreaders, sometimes illustrators, 
"alpha-testers" - friends to whom the author read parts of unfinished book ?
I think that without those people quality of the book would suffer very much -
so much that it might provoke you to propose author's liability for that.

> There is UN, WTO and thousands of other worldwide
> organizations trying to influence one or another aspect of human
> activity.  Most of these activities are far less important than
> software development. Because, again, it will influence everything,
> and in a very short period of time.

But there are international organizations and national organization in various
countries (some of then actually are international - like ACM and IEEE)
dealing with software as well. What else you want? Are you participating in
at least one of those organizations?

> But what I actually meant, is that if there is a serious defect (such
> as periodic crash, data corruption etc),

But if that periodic crash is caused by irregular malfunction of some hardware
(preferably the motherboard) or underlying OS or combination of both? How
court will investigate such cases? If those crashes are caused by unique
ability of the user to type too fast? If that data corruption happens after
power failures only? Or after the user ignored an error/warning message from
OS?

Being an appointed investigator and arbiter for such murky cases during 6
years (although with now ancient hardware and software) I can easily imagine
a whole gallery of doubtful and at the same time realistic cases.

But the real problem and real danger of that liability is that the vendor,
fearing suits, will reduce risk. There are many situations where programmer
can decide whether to take a risk - in interests of almost all users - or not
to do that because in a case of bad luck the user will suffer, however
probably slightly, but nevertheless s/he will be annoyed and perhaps will sue.
And even there will be no real unhappy users, there may be "research firm"
that lurkes around for such holes and probably will find it - and then provoke
a suit.

> >So "NO WARRANTY" in the context of a license for some product should mean
> >that there is "NO WRITTEN ASSURANCE THAT THIS PRODUCT WILL MEET CERTAIN
> >SPECIFICATIONS".
> >
> >Quite clear, I think. In short: "You can't sue".
>
> See, you need not to be a lawyer.

Yes, those *current* licenses were designed mostly for common people, not for
lawyers. But if liability will be introduced then those licences will be fully
rewritten and will become documents for lawyers only.

> >> >What I see in reality is quite rapid progress. One may clain that the progress
> >> >might be more rapid and more comprehensive if some other rules were in effect.
> >>
> >> So far the only "rapid progress" you have specified was the number of
> >> users. It is irrelevant.
> >
> >Not just number of users, but many new categories of users and many new
> >sorts of applications.
>
> Again this is not progress. It is a law of market which fills all
> holes.

But who create those holes?

> your point seems to be: "there is something very specific in
> software products which expulses them from juridical system." This is
> a strong statement, so a proof, please.

You said that many times yourself - that software is very specific - in its
omnipresence (in very near future), in its unversality, and even in its
potential danger. And I do not dispute that, generally.

What expulses it from juridical system? Exactly some of those features -
mostly its universality, but also its omnipresence: software as a general
notion is bigger and more powerful (however vague) than any legal system.

I am not generally against vendor's liability for particular software
products. I am against liability for software. Liability should be based
on intended use of the product and it should not relate to popular notions
regarding the product's construction. And it certainly should not be based
on those popular notions. In other words, liability should not mention
software at all - at least before the legal definition of the term "software"
will be approved (and when such a definition will be available it will be
possible, and probably easy, to move the product outside of this definition).




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