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

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >And all that said, science and engineering are still entirely different
> >activities.
>
> Science is consciousness of engineering.

This is just a slogan - you may use it where appropriate, but don't rely upon
it too much.

Science, or more precisely, a part (not major part) of well-established
(vs. vanguard), often almost fossilized science is a part - and what is
important - not leading part, but rather supportive part of consciousness
of engineering. There are other, major parts of consciousness of engineering,
which have leading roles: utility for a customer and public and safety for
a customer and public.

> >> >> > 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?
>
> Are you disagree with me?

Yes, I believe that your viewpoint is way too simple and therefore inadequate.
Recall the notions of "visibility", "information hiding" and "encapsulation",
apply them metaphorically to public informational structure of society - and
you'll see some opportunities, and perhaps even necessities.

> Do you think that science should be a secret sect?

No, there is relatively little (at any given moment) in science to be kept
in secret.

My point is that if you are not just a citizen, but also an established
professional, and if you care about impact of your profession onto society,
then you should pay attention not only for the leading public institutions
of the whole society but also for leading public institutions of your
profession. In the areas of programming and software engineering the latter
are (as far as I understand) ACM and IEEE.

> >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.
>
> Probably because these bridges keep standing for thousand years.

That could't be guessed in advance, so that couldn't be a reason for
discharging the engineers from the duty of standing under those bridges.

> Can you promise that for MS-Word?

Can you promise that for any currently standing bridge? As for MS-Word, it is
standing (yes, with substantial maintenance/upgrading) more than a decade, I
think - not a small period in software age.

> >> >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. 
>
> There always will be people who will challenge any problem.

You mean that there always will be enough people who will challenge any
problem, including a liability and a threat of jail? Well, possibly it is so,
but how can you know that and rely upon that, not being one of those people,
and not having many friends of this kind around you?

> >> >> 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.
>
> So why are you for hardware certification and against software one?

I am against differentiation software from hardware in a single device from
viewpoint of law. Law may require certification of device, certification or
licensing of particular use of the device, liability for vendor or liability
for user, but it should not separate software from hardware in that device.
Even if law needed to speak differently about the fixed part of the device
and replaceable part of it, it should speak exactly about fixed and
replaceable parts, and not about hardware and software - even if the
replacement of the replaceable part can be done over the Internet.

Note that your fears about unreliable downloading of software (or downloading
an unverifyed software) into device have some analogy in hardware - if one
would use unprotected external cables for a device then various sources of
electromagnetic fields would induce a lot of noise into the cables.




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