|Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org.) (1995-09-07)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-13)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? Steve_Kilbane@cegelecproj.co.uk (1995-09-14)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nicol) (1995-09-14)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-20)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-09-20)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? ECE@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za (John Carter) (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Mark C. Chu-Carroll) (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-09-21)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-23)|
|[18 later articles]|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Ronald F. Guilmette)|
|Organization:||Infinite Monkeys & Co.|
|Date:||Wed, 20 Sep 1995 10:33:52 GMT|
Gabriela de Vivo (UCV). <email@example.com> wrote:
>===== ACADEMIC ASSUMPTIONS - ARE THESE ALL REALLY TRUE ? ======
>* Strongly type language result in better programs.
No. Strongly typed languages force people to think more about what they
are doing. It is the _thinking_ that results in better programs.
>* Performance is a language problem.
Performance is _everybody's_ problem.
>* Compilation is better than interpretation.
Apples are better than oranges.
>* Memory is free, speed is what is worth optimizing.
I'm glad that someone told me that memory is free. I guess that means that
I had better sell my Micron Technologies stock. :-)
But seriously, if you started programming back when I did (circa mid 70's)
or earlier, then yes, by comparison, in the modern era memory _is_ free.
>* Multi-threading is better than single threading.
I don't know anybody who thinks that. Try writing a multi-threaded
program and then tell us how much you enjoyed the experience. Ugh!
Too complicated. If you have to do it for performance reasons, well
then alright. But otherwise...
>*Specification and design can be performed with no knowledge of implementation.
I don't know any _professionals_ who think that.
>* Programming, testing, packaging are easy, design is hard.
Programming and packaging are easy. Design and testing are hard.
>* Formal specifications yield correct programs.
No. Formal specifications yield PhD theses. They may also occasionally
yield programs as by-products, but no useful ones.
>* Applications contain a substantial number of algorithms.
Well, usually at least two.
>* Industry uses ... C++, CORBA, Windows, UNIX, ...
Nonsense. Industry uses COBOL on Windoze95.
>* Industry has better or worse tools.
Indeed they do. (Some places in industry have garbage, while others have
the best that money can buy.)
>* Industry runs on wrong hardware and software platforms.
Wrong in what sense? In the sense that (like all man-made implements)
they are all engineering compromises determined by available money and
>* WYSIWYG is better for all applications.
Better than what?
I guess that the bottom line is that I feel that many of your points are
silly on the face of them. If these are the kinds of things that people
in academia believe then we are all in trouble. More to the point, if
these are the kinds of things that people in academia are even _discussing_
then we are in a lot of trouble. Like for example your point about
compilation vs. interpretation. Arguing about which is better would be
silly. Academics could surely find something more worthy to argue about...
like for instance whether light beer tastes great or is less filling.
-- Ron Guilmette, Roseville, CA -------- Infinite Monkeys & Co. ------------
---- E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ----------- Purveyors of Compiler Test Suites -
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.