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

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Engineering is a product of science. Without science it is called
> craftsmanship.

With the same logic and in the same sense one can say that science (at least
natural science) is a product of engineering: physics is practically
indistinguishable from philosophy without engineered tools, as well as
chemistry from alchemy. Social sciences were also just a branches/aspects
of philosophy before they employed engineered tools (data processing tools).

Actually one can consider science (at least modern science) as an engineering
in common mental space.

And all that said, science and engineering are still entirely different
activities.

> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> Can you remember the last time CNN mentioned IEEE in its news block?
> >> UN-bureaucrats are aired each day.
> >
> >So your understanding of democracy implies that any substantial influence,
> >even in complex scientific/technical matters, can be performed only by bodies,
> >of which general public is well aware through mass-media?
>
> Absolutely. To be prepared for concessions (science is an expensive
> thing) public has to be aware of what's going on.

Great. Do you think that general public (in USA) was well aware of RAND
Corporation in 60th? Do you think those battalions of think tanks, which
emerge in recent decades either do not influence anything significantly or
are well-known to general public?

> >> Neither software nor legal
> >> system can even emerge without humans. Yet criminal law exists.
> >
> >Airplanes could not emerge without humans, but they are much faster than
> >humans, and they can fly.
>
> Thus according to your logic they should be excluded from legal
> system.

Hm, but they are indeed excluded. For example, as far as I understand, in USA
they are practically excluded from the legal system by the method of
delegation, that is, the law designates a professional (non-legal) body,
and then requires that all dealing with airplanes must comply with the rules
(mostly non-legal rules in their essence) established by that body (FAA, I
think). And that exclusion is provided for an area where threat to human lives
is severe and constant.

But I note that you used a metaphor for jumping off-off-topic. Perhaps you
are just dancing.

> >> Depending on application area, the state has right to require definite
> >> procedures to be applied for software construction. This is a common
> >> practice. There is no reason to reinvent wheel here.
> >
> >That may be true for some application domains, but only for small minority of
> >them.
>
> This would be vast majority, and very soon.

Is a smart dust your favorite nightmare?

> >> Those are not notions, but knowledge. It is *known* that bridges shall
> >> not be built without analysis of statics etc. Again, there is no
> >> reason, why it should be otherwise in case of software.
> >
> >It is quite obvious (and was said many times by various people) that humans
> >have built bridges for many centures,
>
> Yes, and in ancient Rome, the engineer should stand under his bridge
> during first tests.

Yes, legends said that. But it never was said they those poor Roman engineers
should stand under their bridges all the time while those bridges are used,
or even once per week for a hour.

> >but they have built software for several
> >decades only. Do you perceive significant difference between many centures
> >and several decades of experience?
>
> I see no difference. Do not build bridges if you cannot.

Well, OK, we'll have much less bridges. We'll swim and sometimes drown. 

> If you
> believe that you can, be liable for the result. If you know that you
> cannot, but pretend that you can, then your place is in jail.

I don't want to be in jail - I prefer that you'll be drowned trying to cross
a river without a bridge. 

> >> Consider a bed-side monitoring system for resuscitation departments.
> >> Should a patient die because of software crash, who would be liable?
> >
> >I can't see a difference (for a user, that is either the patient or hospital)
> >between a software crash or hardware malfunction in that system.
>
> The difference is that next time, other firm would pay more attention
> to quality. As you probably know, the most important goal of
> punishment is prevention of crime.

I still can't see a difference between in this example between software crash
and hardware malfunction in the system. The quality is equally involved in
both cases.

> >In that
> >your example I'd sue the hospital, which uses that system - for incompetency
> >with the tools it employs.
>
>The judge will answer you that according to your theory, it is solely
> you who was incompetent in choosing a hospital employing tools
> developed by incompetent vendors.

It is quite possible, at least in American courts, as far as I understand.
If the judge decided that my expectations were unreasonable, that I did not
exercise enough efforts for ensure that those my expectations will be met
by this particular hospital, then the judge probably will answer something
like that. But if the judge decided that according to common sense my
expectations were reasonable and that (again, according to common sense)
I made appropriate inquiries and received confirmations (of if I was deprived
from an opprtunity to get the necessary information) - then the judge probably
will found the hospital guilty.




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