|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)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefan Monnier) (1995-09-25)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-09-25)|
|[16 later articles]|
|From:||"John Carter" <ECE@dwaf-hri.pwv.gov.za>|
|Organization:||Dpt Water Affairs & Forestry (IWQS)|
|Date:||Thu, 21 Sep 1995 11:31:20 GMT|
It is good to reevaluate ones assumptions every now again, especial
after having old murphy rub our noses in the facts...
>===== ACADEMIC ASSUMPTIONS - ARE THESE ALL REALLY TRUE ? ======
>* Strongly type language result in better programs.
Limited or flawed design of some languages shouldn't put us off the
fundamental fact. It works and works well.
If anything the stronger form of pure OOP's where everything carries
its type around with it, really protects you AND sets you free.
>* Performance is a language problem.
No. Its :-
a) Developement time problem. (What do we have time to program)
b) Algorithm problem.
c) Then only a language problem.
>* Compilation is better than interpretation.
If you have the time to write the compiler. Whipping up an
interpreter is relatively easy.
>* Memory is free, speed is what is worth optimizing.
True within strict limits.
So this is why MS-Word can't process my document in 40 megs where the
old WP51-DOS did it 512kb?
>* Multi-threading is better than single threading.
Multithreading can be a real bitch to debug.
But some problems are simply intrinsically multithreaded, others
>* Specification and design can be performed with no knowledge of
Whilst Murphy exists and we are finite, wrong-wrong-wrong.
>* Programming, testing, packaging are easy, design is hard.
It is false that in the real world you can completely separate these
phases. The best and most productive systems encourage very tight
(within seconds) coupling between these steps. The distinction blurs.
>* Formal specifications yield correct programs.
Wrong. Formal specifications yield buggy formal specifications whose
relavency to the user problem has expired.
>* Applications contain a substantial number of algorithms.
>* Industry uses ... C++, CORBA, Windows, UNIX, ...
C++, UNIX, Windows.
CORBA? Never seen anyone actually use it.
>* Industry has better or worse tools.
Free(w/source) tools are gathering a frightening amount of steam. If
I were to point at a trend that is open ended, here it is.
>* Industry runs on wrong hardware and software platforms.
The market is priced ever so carefully so as to maximise the
>* WYSIWYG is better for all applications.
What You Want Is What You Get is the holy grail. WYSIWYG is merely a
crutch. A truncheon with which to beat recalcitrant packages into
yielding the desired result. (Marketing is the science of convincing
us that What You Get Is What You Want.)
Hmm. What Will Work Is What You Get might be even better.
Institute for Water Quality Studies. Department of Water Affairs.
Internet : firstname.lastname@example.org Phone : 27-12-808-0374x194
Fax : 27-12-808-0338 [Host for Afwater list server]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.