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

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >[...] Is it correct
> >to say that such a person, who contribute very little to that, defines or
> >forms [...] ?
>
> You cannot estimate it.

Interesting. So you can easily imagine a situation, in which a person who
contributes very little (in any way) to the whole nevertheless can define or
form that whole. This implies that you think that common definitions and forms
are terribly unstable.

> Unpopularity in science and art tells little about influence.

Well, not little, although certainly not too much, especially if you measure
(un)popularity in general audience that is not closely connected to the
influenced subject. Popularity is just one of the ways for influencing, among
other ways.

> Do not mix "software pop-culture" with the notion of software.

Well, I'd prefer the term "mid-culture" if I were going to mix the notion of
software with something.

> There is no warranty that the distance would have any physical sense.

You are so fixed on warranties that I wonder whether there is a warranty that
the warranties you already collected aren't false.

As for the physical sense of distance, I'd like to assure you that the
classical distance still has solid physical sense, although it is true that
you most probably can't win Nobel prize for pronouncing and defending this
thesis.

> But notion of software deals with all stages of its production and
> use, I hope.

This isn't so simple as it may seem. A person developed some software and
was paid for that. Then the same person uses another software, paying for
that. You can see that money intervene in the middle of the production-use
chain, and broke it for that person. Most often even programmers don't use
software for which they are paid. So, although from an external, theoretical
viewpoint the notion of software indeed deals with all stages of lifecycle,
from other viewpoints, including those of users and even of many programmers,
an outlook is quite different.

> >> A recent idea is to replace its simple
> >> sensor by a computer controlled system which will detect crashes
> >> before they happen. In the effect air bags will be inflated by
> >> software. There are also other interesting innovations: brake-by-wire,
> >> stir-by-wire, which names need not to be explained. Enjoy!
> >
> >Well, it isn't simple to estimate the balance of probable consequences of that
> >things, including a redistribution of negative consequences between guilty and
> >innocent parties.
>
>No, it is absolute clear. Customer (you) pays for all.

I think that not only customer, but a vendor (managers, shareholders, and
their relatives) also will participate in the payment - for example, as 
innocent party, being hit by a car produced by another vendor.

> >By the way, I think that a free and open-source emulator of a generic car,
> >which, in particular, includes all those devices, would be very good thing.
>
> Come on. All specifications and all protocols are strict secret.

It reminds me a secret military constant Pi. Note, though, that the exact
number of digits of Pi used in particular computation may be indeed a secret,
which is hard to obtain.

> The system is absolutely unprotected. If you know the protocol and can
> connect to a car field bus (the devices are free to buy), then you can
> do everything with it. Starting from resetting your car mileage,
> ending with taking control over the brake pedal. In a close future you
> will need no device to do that. A cell phone could be sufficient to
> break into.

You forgot to add that there will be no windows in a car - there will be
thin displays instead of them. These displays will show augmented reality -
using onboard external cameras, satellite TV and wireless broadband Internet
and mixing all that into combined picture (with ads, of course).

> >And for those who seek so-called "killer application", I'd like to say that
> >within this application Ada can really shine.
>
> Utopia

Perhaps. But not so wild as you may think of it. There are examples of
programs that seemed unrealistic for the similar reasons, but nevertheless
were created and worked brilliantly for many users. I know at least one such
example - Copilot, original PalmOS emulator. It was developed by a single
person (as far as I remember 2 or 3 persons joined at later stages of the
development), and released as freeware. (After it gained big popularity it
was taken by Palm, Inc for support and maintenance, but continue to be
freeware.) 



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