C70:human-nets (05/18/82)
>From G.MDP@Utexas-20 Tue May 18 10:28:42 1982
HUMAN-NETS Digest Tuesday, 18 May 1982 Volume 5 : Issue 67
Today's Topics:
Query - Nomic Players & Braniff Intrigue,
Programming - Dijkstra & Languages for Good Programming
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 16 May 1982 1556-CDT
From: David Phillips <CC.DAVID at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: Nomic, "The Paradox of Self-Amendment" game
I am intrigued by Nomic, the game by Peter Suber described in the June
1982 METAMAGICAL THEMAS column in ``Scientific American''. I would
enjoy a chance to play it with others. I've entered the ``INITIAL SET
OF RULES'' in file:
<cc.David>Nomic.Doc
on UTEXAS-20. You can FTP the file by logging in as ANONYMOUS.
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 1982 1705-PDT
From: Craig W. Reynolds from III via Rand <REYNOLDS at RAND-AI>
Subject: AA hacked BRANIFF?
Does anyone out there know anything about the charges by the Braniff
exec that unnamed persons at American Airlines had hacked Braniff's
flight reservation computer system? They also alleged other nasty
business practices (such as "jaw boning" Braniff's bankers).
Specifically it was stated that data on the computer system was
modified to indicate that scheduled flights did not really exist, and
deleted some passenger reservations.
-c
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 82 16:41-PDT
From: rubin at SRI-TSC
Subject: Dijkstra's Ego
Despite the lofty tone of his writings, Professor Dijkstra is anything
but egotistical. I believe the Good Professor is really quite a
humble and self-effacing man; his writing style simply belies his true
nature. I feel we should offer not flames but our forbearance for a
problem that Dr. Dijkstra must understand all too well.
It is practically impossible to teach good writing to students that
have had prior exposure to Dutch: as potential writers they are
mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
--Darryl
------------------------------
Date: 18 May 1982 00:58-EDT
From: Keith F. Lynch <KFL at MIT-AI>
Subject: Dijkstra
I didn't see any positive comments about any language from
Dijkstra. I wish he would tell us what computer languages, if any, he
considers useful, or at least harmless.
...Keith
------------------------------
Date: Monday, 17 May 1982 09:33-EDT
From: Jon Webb <Webb at Cmu-20c>
Subject: Dijkstra
I have been taught Structured Programming by people following
Dijkstra's approach at Ohio State and the University of Texas at
Austin, and also I have listened to some lectures by Dijkstra at those
places, and I must say that there is definitely something there.
Programming in the way Dijkstra advocates leads to a much deeper
understanding of the algorithm, and can often lead to a more elegant
or more efficient algorithm. This is especially true when the
programs compute number-theoretic or bottom-level operating system
functions. The problem with applying Dijkstra's approach to more
complex problems, like user interfaces, is not in the methodology but
in the ill-defined nature of the problem to be solved, and the fact
that the problem must be solved regardless of the elegance of the
algorithm.
Jon
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 1982 1706-PDT (Monday)
From: davidson <sdcsvax!davidson@nprdc>
Subject: good BASICs
It's rather tiresome to read about all of these totally incompatible
"good" BASICs. Even if portability is not an issue (do you really
want to reinvent the wheel constantly?) everyone should know that nice
control constructs (WHILE, REPEAT ... UNTIL, etc.) are not what Pascal
(and Pascal derived languages) are about, and is very little of what
constitutes the discipline of structured programming. ALGOL had those
constructs, but Pascal has handily replaced it. The strength of
Pascal is in the data structures, and in the compile time type
checking. However, I wish to emphasize that structured programming is
not dependent on the programming language used. In fact, until the
design of a program is nearly complete, it should be in English.
Pascal's virtues, then, are two: (1) making coding easier, and (2)
making bugs harder.
Greg Davidson
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 82 8:27:31-EDT (Mon)
From: Dave Farber <farber.EE@UDel-Relay>
Subject: Programming Languages
Sounds to me that we are mixing up a lot of things. I have always
taken the position that a person who claims to be a professional in
this field should have a selection of tools. In one part of the
computer business that means a selection of languages. I speak Basic,
Pl/1, SNOBOL, Fortran, Pascal, Modula, Ada, Lisp etc and have a
working acquaintance with several others (even IPL V). The fact that
I first learned the 650 L language seems not to have damaged me beyond
hope. The main problem in my mind is knowing when to use what
langauge. To do string manipulation in Fortran is difficult while to
do floating point calculations in SNOBOL is rather foolish.
Again there is a need for many tools and people who know when a
particular tool is applicable.
Dave
By the way, a person who knows how only one machine is programmed at
machine level is illiterate in this field also.
------------------------------
Date: 17 May 1982 1217-EDT
From: PETER MILLER AT METOO
Reply-to: "PETER MILLER AT METOO in care of" <YOUNG at DEC-MARLBORO>
Subject: Anthropomorphic Languages (Truths That Might Hurt)
One of the greatest truths that has been learned from the development
of programming languages and programming systems is that there is no
single language or programming technique that is perfectly suited for
every problem.
The greatest problem faced by non-programming professionals in
attempting to use computers is the mapping problem - how to state and
solve their problem (which is well-understood in their own internal
model) in another quite alien model.
I would agree with Bruce Lucas that I would rather have a thoroughly
rigorous, mathematically-oriented language (probably programmed by
mathematicians) for problems such as FFT, string-matching, etc.
Other problems - office-oriented information systems, and business
data processing - seem less well-suited for such languages and
programmers.
Anthropomorphic languages, as real production tools, are really in
their infancy. Precision is possible. Even building good software
engineering practice into such a language is possible. Model-based
programming with natural language-style syntax offers the potential of
supporting a larger programmer base than is currently possible.
Regardless of the elitist contempt that EWD holds for such
technologies, they will be given their opportunity to compete in the
marketplace.
Peter B. Miller
------------------------------
End of HUMAN-NETS Digest
************************