From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9629eba26884d78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-11 02:49:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: signature like constructions Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 11:54:49 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3F337798.2030008@attbi.com> <0o57jvsu8svaarn54n1j7js0casiclfqhb@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1060595358 32918453 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41313 Date: 2003-08-11T11:54:49+02:00 List-Id: 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