Re: signature like constructions

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 8 Aug 2003 16:44:04 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander
Kopilovitch) wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> This is a question of balance between understanding of the problem and
>> understanding of the software tools used to solve it. From the dawn of
>> computers to present day, the first component prevailed,
>
>And certainly will always prevail. Essentially, by definition: if the software
>world becomes more significant than traditional real world -:) then there will
>be just new class of the problems - concerning the software world, and no more
>than that. So we'll still look at the problems at first.

OK, but those problems are not ones we presently count for real.

>> allowing to implement "everything [problem] in anything [language]".
>
>No, this is too inexact statement: even 3 decades ago it was not possible
>to implement real-time control program in RPG language. So, not in "anything",
>but in "any universal language" - and with this more precise wording the
>statement becomes trivially true.

What we count for "universal" is changing, depending on which problems
are of "universal" concern.

I give you a funny example. One student was unable to tell me how to
calculate a distance between two points in cartesian co-ordinates! He
naturally knew nothing about Euclidean distance, space etc. Now the
most amazing thing. This student had successfuly modified a
3D-simulation program in OpenGL! (:-))

It is a catastrophe, would you say. Yes, but it is also a triumph of
software developing tools. Let me foretell that new generations of
programmes will even know nothing about arithmetics! (:-))

>> But in a long-term perspective, I am talking about 20-100 years,
>
>20 years ago no one can predict our current power of computing technology and
>its presence everywhere in just 2000. Given that the explosion still continues,
>how can you guess about 20 and even 100 future years?

I can guess the plume of that explosion ...

>> the balance
>> will definitely change, otherwise we will be unable to maintain the
>> complexity of software [not the algorithms, note].
>
>What we will unable to maintain will certainly crash. And we will not make
>such too complex software any more (after several attempts with sound failures).

This will stop nobody. There are much worse things people are doing,
being well aware of the consequences.

>That's simple. Just the same reasons as for not to build a 100km-high tower.

That tower is already built. Its name is internet! (:-))

>> It will be a
>> virtual reality with its own virtual problems, if you wish. (:-))
>
>Well, virtual reality is not so big challenge actually. Even nanotechnologies
>constitute substantially bigger challenge, because they may easily ruin much
>more our "axioms of impossible", which may appear vital for our implicit logic.

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de