chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/17/91)
[ Followups to comp.misc ] According to hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin): >Montgomery and Silverman are number theorists, I am a professor >of Statistics and Mathematics. We are expected to do other >things. I'm a programmer, but that doesn't mean I've got all the time I want to do projects for J. Random Person. I'm expected to do other things, too. >I believe that such a macro translator could be produced ... A spec, Herman. Surely you can squeeze a few hours our of your busy schedule to produce a spec. Or is your desired language a mystery even to you? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions." -- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetz
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (02/18/91)
In article <27BDC456.20D6@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > [ Followups to comp.misc ] > > According to hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin): > >Montgomery and Silverman are number theorists, I am a professor > >of Statistics and Mathematics. We are expected to do other > >things. > > I'm a programmer, but that doesn't mean I've got all the time I want > to do projects for J. Random Person. I'm expected to do other things, > too. > > >I believe that such a macro translator could be produced ... > > A spec, Herman. Surely you can squeeze a few hours our of your busy > schedule to produce a spec. Or is your desired language a mystery > even to you? I am not saying that every programmer should drop what he is doing to produce the appropriate tools. But the problems faced are problems which can be handled, and even anticipated, by including flexible tools. They are not going to be even treated by moving in the direction of more and more rigid structures, hardware, software, and OS. In the next few weeks I will produce something which I believe will indicate what should be done. It will definitely not be in the direction which programmers and language desingners are moving now; the great introduction of variables by Diophantus made it possible to communicate algebraically without confusion. Unfortunately, we seem to refuse to consider this simple idea, and instead concentrate on manipulations. The same is true in the current approach to computing. Instead of setting up tools so that the person expressing ideas in a notational language can have this automatically, as far as is possible, translated into what the sub-imbeciles known as computers can understand, we state that this processor can only use these idea. How efficiently a computer can handle things depends both on the hardware and software, and I suggest that the first step should be to make a preliminary translation of what the user wants to write, in the user's notation, into "computerese." THEN worry about how to do things efficiently. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (02/18/91)
In article <27BDC456.20D6@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I'm a programmer, but that doesn't mean I've got all the time I want >to do projects for J. Random Person. I'm expected to do other things, >too. This is true, but if all users wanted to do exactly the same thing, you could burn it into ROM and retire. As the computer market has grown in size, it has necessarily encompassed users with increasingly diverse needs. The software industry has historically responded by building increasingly general systems. If you can build one system that 1,000,000 people can feel happy with, then you get richer than if you build a system that only 1,000 people feel happy with. Since you are unlikely to comprehend the full range of desires held by 1,000,000 people, the only way you can satisfy them is to build systems that are capable of adapting to their environments in ways you do not foresee in absolute detail. This is what Mother Nature has done with biological systems. Your genes can't predict what crises and competitions your progeny will face; they can, however, roll with a lot of different punches. -- Dan Mocsny Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu