taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) (07/01/86)
-------- This article is from Chris Torek <chris@MIMSY.UMD.EDU> and was received on Sat Jun 28 09:11:17 1986 -------- Much has been said in this forum concerning the effect of computers on writing. Some have argued that word processors have encouraged bad writing; others have claimed that on-line editors and compilers have encouraged bad coding. That some systems have produced bad results is most certainly true, but the word `encourage' is perhaps too strong: As still others have pointed out, computers are merely tools, and what really counts is what use is made of them. It is true that some tools work better than others, but this depends on the purpose of the tool as well: One can use a drill to cut an irregularly-shaped piece of wood, but a jigsaw does the job faster and better. (As an aside, I find it interesting to note that the computer itself is not much of a tool at all until it is fed some code. That the code determines the function is a marvellous thing, for now we have a very general purpose tool that can be adapted for many jobs. I am reminded of a ratchet handle that takes screwdriver tips as well as sockets. But this is not always a good thing: many `all-in-one' tool sets are rather poor, at that. The concept is fine; but beware the implmentation!) Some have lamented the lack of quality in electronic mail messages. These people should consider first the intent of those messages. It is not sensible for a writer to spend hours agonising over each word in a shopping list; likewise, it is not sensible for someone to spend hours composing the text of a message destined for a friend and asking for a copy of a particular piece of software. On the other hand, it is eminently reasonable to put serious thought into a message sent to a mailing list such as this one. With many readers, there are many opportunities for misunderstanding, and misapprehensions may be more difficult to correct: consider for example the case where a retraction notice is lost. ---But enough about purpose; I wish to concentrate on a more general issue. Those in the mechanical world have a saying: `form follows function.' What this really means is that a properly designed tool is easy to use as intended. For example, a car has its oil drain plug at the bottom of its oil pan. To change the oil one simply opens the plug; the fluid then drains out by itself. A poor design would put the plug at the top of the engine, necessitating turning the entire car upside down! (Well, perhaps a siphon would work. :-) ) (I should note here that while many radiators do require a siphon for drainage, this is not necessarily bad; radiator fluid changes are, or at least should be, considerably more rare than oil changes. One must weigh the chances and consequences of leakage against the convenience of a radiator drain plug.) I think the same priciple applies to computers, but with one modification: `form follows function, and function follows form'. Bad form makes good function difficult or impossible, and society (whatever that is) has not yet learned how to distinguish between good and bad form in computer programs. I daresay bad mechanical tools are more readily recognised as worthless by the average person in a machine shop than bad programs are by the average coder. Why? Simply because society (there goes that nebulous catch-all word again) has had more time to learn what, in this case, makes the difference between good tools and bad tools. A properly designed word processor should allow one to compose one's thoughts more easily. A good programming system should aid construction of correct, readable, and efficient code. A bad system, however, may have the reverse effect, inducing works of lower quality. There are, I am sure, both bad and good systems available, and with both in use, there is some justification for claiming that computers have `encouraged' bad writing or bad coding. In fairness, though, we should then also claim that computers have encouraged good writing and good coding. But I think it would be more productive to identify which systems have had which influences. In time, we will learn what makes the differenence between good and bad in computer systems too---though by then we will have some other newfangled thing to complain about. :-) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1516) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu