From: Ben Houston (ben@exocortex.org)
Date: Sat Jun 01 2002 - 16:01:42 MDT
Eugen Leitl wrote on June 01, 2002:
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Ben Houston wrote:
> > time. Modern languages have higher productivity for three main
> > reasons: more precise/useful language constructs, managed
> > environments, and better designed libraries. Both of these
languages,
> > C# and Java, are also hardware agnostic in that they both compile
into
> > platform independent "bytecode". There are now versions of Cobol,
> > C++, Eiffel, and Visual Basic that also compile down to platform
> > independent "bytecode".
>
> Can we write useful, provably correct systems? No.
No, but that is a very difficult problem though.
> Can we write secure systems? No.
No but we can write more easily systems that have good security. Both
Java and C# have very decent security system build in. The use of
objects for buffers and strings really helps to eliminate most of the
common sources of buffer overruns.
> Okay, can we at least write gracefully failing systems? No.
Java and C# can fail much more gracefully than a C or C++ system can.
Every error now throws a well defined exception.
> Can we generate code to specs automatically? No.
Case systems are difficult.
> Can we design massively
> parallel systems, where millions of asynchronous objects distributed
over
> thousands of small processors do meaningful work? No.
Writing distributed systems is much easier today that it was in the
past. I wrote a distributed application yesterday from start to finish.
:-)
> Do we have any clue
> as to how break through the complexity bareer, using nonstochastical
> methods (coder monkeys)? No and no.
Hmm... I do not understand what you mean.
Cheers,
-ben houston
http://www.exocortex.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sl4@sysopmind.com [mailto:owner-sl4@sysopmind.com] On
Behalf
> Of Eugen Leitl
> Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 2:20 PM
> To: sl4@sysopmind.com
> Subject: Re: software progress (RE: Hardware Progress: $319/GF)
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002, Ben Houston wrote:
>
> > Not in my world. The new languages I love such as Java and C# do
> > result in higher productivity for me -- which in turn means I can
> > write more efficient and complex programs with less effort and in
less
>
> I meant an awful lot more with software progress than just a bunch of
new
> languages (neither of them going beyond Lisp, a gold benchmark by
which
> every language is measured).
>
> > time. Modern languages have higher productivity for three main
> > reasons: more precise/useful language constructs, managed
> > environments, and better designed libraries. Both of these
languages,
> > C# and Java, are also hardware agnostic in that they both compile
into
> > platform independent "bytecode". There are now versions of Cobol,
> > C++, Eiffel, and Visual Basic that also compile down to platform
> > independent "bytecode".
>
> Can we write useful, provably correct systems? No. Can we write secure
> systems? No. Okay, can we at least write gracefully failing systems?
No.
> Can we generate code to specs automatically? No. Can we design
massively
> parallel systems, where millions of asynchronous objects distributed
over
> thousands of small processors do meaningful work? No. Do we have any
clue
> as to how break through the complexity bareer, using nonstochastical
> methods (coder monkeys)? No and no.
>
> There's no need to go on. We haven't had any palpable progress in the
last
> decade, arguably two. In fact, the average code quality is decreasing,
> though to different reasons.
>
> > I think that software is doing a lot better that you believe. :-)
>
> It is probably doing a great deal worse.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT