Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?

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

On 22 Sep 2003 19:05:30 -0700, aek@vib.usr.pu.ru (Alexander
Kopilovitch) wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: in message 
>
>> >It's impossible - to train not to recognize - at least at current state-of-art
>> >and not a single person, but a big part of population. You can (with big and
>> >very costly effort) block a particular way of recognition, but no more.
>> 
>> Oh, this is very possible. For example, people trained to eat
>> McDonald's food will not accept any decent dish.
>
>You are certainly wrong. Those habits easily change in several weeks in
>appropriate (even not severe) circumstances, for almost every person.

Oh, I observed many children. As a rule, they prefer McDonald's to
normal food, Milka/Snickers to good chocolate, coca-cola to other
drinks. Compare it with software developers, which definetely prefer
C++ and Java to Ada. You can spend all your life trying to explain
them that McDonald's or C++ is bad, but they still will. Reflexes are
stronger than any explanations.

>> People permanently
>> watching MTV are unable to recognize virtually any music.
>
>This is wrong also. They just may be unable to recognize that this *is called*
>music, because they reserved that term to MTV production, but this generally
>do not make them deaf to another kinds of music - it just should not be abstract,
>and should not require special training.

Training is essential in understanding music. More complex it is,
higher the level of training required. As for "MTV music", it also
requires a lot of training, but for other reasons.

>> Wirth wrote
>> that students once exposed to Basic are beyond any hope...
>
>Well, this was true in some sense, but the difference is that programming is
>more about creation then about consumption or perception.

Understanding of good music also requires some creative efforts.

>> >Given current circumstances regarding intellectual property, I can't resist
>> >to ask question: if knowledge, rather than money, is a measure of success,
>> >doesn't this mean that knowledge became a property in that science-oriented
>> >society? -;)
>> 
>> In my dilettantish opinion, there is a difference, knowledge is
>> difficult to separate from its carrier.
>
>But a carrier can be severely restricted (if not imprisoned... or even killed
>after he shared his knowledge with another person)

It would be too expensive. If you mean Stalin's methods, remeber that
he was looting the potential built before him.

> - by state or corporate
>secrecy/security rules, copyright or patent laws (don't forget that copyright
>and patent rights may be sold and bought).

Copyright on knowledge, what is that? You can probably patent 2+2=4,
but how can you prevent me from using this knowledge? I mean to build
an *effective* legal system protecting such patents? How to prove that
i=sqrt(-1) is based on 2+2=4? Imagine a court, where such case could
be brought in!

>In such a situation the real measure
>of success is not carrying knowledge, but having rights and/or control of it.
>Not much difference from money, I think.

There is a difference, you cannot control it without killing it.
Science is rooted in freedom. Church, Communists tried first to
control and then to fight against it, and they lost. There will be
others...

>Just as mocking science and irresponsible engineering. It is not easy (and even
>relatively easy) to create popular music or movies of high quality (like, say,
>Nino Rota... or Webber in JCS and Evita - in music, and, say, Casablanca - for
>movie).

Does recording industry create any music? They sell it!
 
>> >> ...people grown in rich families often despise
>> >> money and become anarchists, socialists, anti-globalists, greens etc.
>> >> They just take wealth [created by others] for granted.
>> >
>> >I don't know how often it happens (I never meet such persons, and I strongly
>> >suspect that you also have no reliable sources for statistics about this
>> >phenomena), but anyway I do not count those, almost always young people being
>> >so stupid - I think they just are trying other values... rich families provide
>> >them possibility for an experiment without too much danger for their present
>> >and future status - so why not to use this opportunity (sometimes)... ?
>> 
>> This is what I meant. This is the pattern. It is like a believer,
>> visiting shrines of all possible gods, church, mosque and not
>> forgetting to buy a horoscope and a herbalife course, just in case.
>> (:-))
>
>Something of this sort... many young people naturally try to find their own
>tastes and places. But as you specifically mentioned rich then don't forget
>about one of the major system roles of rich - many of them are just testers
>- they test things on themselves - so for some part of young rich this can be
>just good training for their future role.

I'd prefer them testing a scientific hypothesis rather than joints.

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