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

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

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> >> >> >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.
>[...]
>I believe that your viewpoint is way too simple and therefore inadequate.
>
>It is not a viewpoint. It is a statement: "public should know".

General public can't know that anyway. Perhaps you mean that public must be
told something particular on that matter - just to fill the gap.

> >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.
>
> These principles tell that irrelevant, non-essential information has
> to be hidden from user/decision maker.

I'd put it in other words: these notions permit us to tell explicitly that
particular information must be treated as irrelevant to or non-essential for
particular considerations.

> So what follows from your, now
> viewpoint, is as simple as "science is irrelevant".

Science, at least much of relatively modern science, is indeed irrelevant
to current events (except of that it takes money, creates jobs and mentally
trains people for other occupations). That science may or may not be relevant
to more or less distant future, but general public never (and rightfully,
I think) cares much about that foggy future.

> Well it is quite
> adequate to the common mood. You accept it, I don't.

It isn't about the moods, it is about the nature of science. It is not always
a good idea to convert a good school teacher into a successful director/owner
of escort girl agency.

> >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.
>
> This is an ultimately wrong point. Things I talked about require
> political decisions. The worst ever thing, which might happen is when
> such decisions would be made in technical circles.

I hope you know that decision-makers usually consult their advisors, including
scientific advisors, before taking decisions. And those advisors often consult
various experts. Then, after decision was taken, it must be somehow
implemented, and very often there are many ways to push or to block that
decision at lower levels of administrative hierarchy, when dealing with
technical issues.

So, certainly, political decisions should not be taken in technical circles;
but those circles inevitably participate in preparation of those decisions
and in their implementation. With this participation in the stages they
effectively participate in the whole decision itself - in its real result.
Should they ignore that fact? This a matter of responsibility - that is, how
those technical circles understand their responsibility.

> >Can you promise that for any currently standing bridge?
>
> One can do it for any given number of years with a very high
> probability.

You certainly forgot about terrorists. And perhaps you are totally unaware
about problems with bridges during wars - I recommend you classical film
"Bridge on the River Kwai" for an introduction.

> MS dropped product upgrade model. And what is called "upgrade" in this
> case, has nothing to do with upgrading material things.

Hm, do you know so much about upgrading material things? There are so many
different material things, and they certainly can't have single common way
for upgrading.

> >> 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.
>
> LOL. Do you seriously belive that no components are certified until
> being packed into a car?

I don't know rules of car industry, but I think that probably some of
components are certified. Perhaps even some materials are certified - at least
I think that in aviation industry it is so.

But this does not matter for the point, because my point is that software
is not a component of a car. Software may participate in various components
of a car, but it is not a component itself.

Look at the example of aviation industry. There are plenty of software in
big airliners, but they do not call those actual components "software", and
they do not separate software from hardware in those components. As far as I
understand, they call that area "avionics", and they certify avionics, not
"software". Perhaps the car industry needs the similar notion. It may be
called "neuronics", for example -:) .



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