Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Obama II

Expand Messages
  • ALBERTO VIEIRA FERREIRA MONTEIRO
    ... Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I m glad they didn t take control of the USA too. Alberto Monteiro the paranoid
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Bryon Daly wrote:
      >
      > Further, as a Mormon, Romney doesn't quite pass the WASP test so he
      > basically had to tack hard right to build up his conservative cred to get
      > the party nomination.
      >
      Ugh. Mormons have taken control of the Internet (by Facebook). I'm
      glad they didn't take control of the USA too.

      Alberto Monteiro the paranoid

      _______________________________________________
      http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Klaus Stock
      ... AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile time. Of course, one might say that Ada that s mainly because Ada imposes so many
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
        > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
        > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
        > automatically eliminated bugs.

        AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
        time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
        imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
        mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
        which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
        run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
        may even cause bugs in extreme cases).

        Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
        superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
        programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
        to more efficient languages.

        However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
        earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
        the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
        magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
        the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.


        Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
        the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
        standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
        standards. No further explanation necessary.

        Best regards, Klaus


        _______________________________________________
        http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • Pat Mathews
        This plays into some recent conversations about efficiency vs resilience. ... _______________________________________________
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

          > Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
          > From: ks@...
          > To: brin-l@...
          > Subject: Re: Obama II
          >
          > > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
          > > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
          > > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
          > > automatically eliminated bugs.
          >
          > AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
          > time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
          > imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
          > mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
          > which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
          > run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
          > may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
          >
          > Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
          > superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
          > programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
          > to more efficient languages.
          >
          > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
          > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
          > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
          > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
          > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
          >
          >
          > Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
          > the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
          > standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
          > standards. No further explanation necessary.
          >
          > Best regards, Klaus
          >
          >
          > _______________________________________________
          > http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          >
        • Klaus Stock
          ... Yup. And neither efficiency nor resilience will help you in the end if you don t ponder some important questions first. Like: do we measure altitude
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            > This plays into some recent conversations about "efficiency" vs "resilience."

            Yup. And neither "efficiency" nor "resilience" will help you in the
            end if you don't ponder some important questions first. Like: "do we
            measure altitude in feet or meters?", or "should we check if the old
            guidance system will work okay in the new rocket?"

            - Klaus

            >> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:06:16 +0100
            >> From: ks@...
            >> To: brin-l@...
            >> Subject: Re: Obama II
            >>
            >> > I know as a fact that the Defense Department said they
            >> > would require that all programming for applications they used would have to
            >> > be done in Ada (I think within 5 years) because Ada was a compiler that
            >> > automatically eliminated bugs.
            >>
            >> AFAIK, the Ada compiler can detect many programmer mistakes at compile
            >> time. Of course, one might say that Ada that's mainly because Ada
            >> imposes so many restrictions on the programmer that the chance to make
            >> mistakes is greatly increased (compared to more "relaxed" languages,
            >> which do, for example, implicit type conversion). Ada also supports
            >> run-time-checks - which detects bugs when it's already too late (or
            >> may even cause bugs in extreme cases).
            >>
            >> Compared to other languages of the time, like Fortran, it's clearly
            >> superior in detecting some classes of bugs early. It also reduces the
            >> programmer's efficiency, resulting the number of bugs per time compare
            >> to more efficient languages.
            >>
            >> However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
            >> earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
            >> the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
            >> magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
            >> the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.
            >>
            >>
            >> Okay, the word "standard" reminds to get back on-topic. I suspect that
            >> the reason for the choice of Ada was that Ada was the first
            >> standardized HL programming language. Oh, the military loves
            >> standards. No further explanation necessary.
            >>
            >> Best regards, Klaus
            >>
            >>
            >> _______________________________________________
            >> http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
            >>

            >

            >



            --
            Best regards,
            Klaus mailto:ks@...


            _______________________________________________
            http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
          • Doug Pensinger
            Actually, bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build. Doug GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 12, 2012
            • 0 Attachment

              Actually,  bugs/design flaws caught during the design phase cost far less than those discovered during the build.

              Doug
              GSV Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance

            • Dan Minette
              ... You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those types of bugs that become features in software. But, I m very unusual, I program
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 17, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > However, the "best bugs" are introduced during programming, but much
                > earlier. Catching bugs at the earliest possible time is expensive, but
                > the ROI is immense and outweighs the cost by several orders of
                > magnitude. Of course, any manager who was reading this dropped out at
                > the word "expensive", so defective software will remain the standard.

                You know that, in over 30 years of programming, I never really had those
                types of bugs that become features in software. But, I'm very unusual, I
                program as a means of thinking out the physics of the problem I'm trying to
                solve. In other words, I write software, where the previous generation, or
                even physicists 5 years ahead of me, would work things on on paper.

                I recall, back in '81, patientily listening to a post doc explaining how to
                do the error anaysis of my data. I patiently listened to him, he knew more
                than I did on most things and had earned my respect, until there was a
                pause.

                I then asked him, but isn't this just an approximation, wouldn't running a
                Monte Carlo to get the error be more accurate.

                He said "yes, but do you have any idea how much it would cost to do a Monte
                Carlo error analysis?"

                I said "yes, $0.27. I did it this morning."

                He looked at me, and said "grad. students have it too easy these days, and I
                left his office"

                The moral of the story is that if you think carfully about what questions
                you ask early, and your job title allows you to do that (as someone who is
                expected to come up with inventions that solve problems, you get some
                leeway...especially if you have a PhD in physics....it may not be fair that
                we get more leeway, but it's my experience), then you can have software that
                actually basically works the first time it is tried with a real tool. I've
                twice had the experience of "well we'll try this, but we'll have to get back
                to you when it fails" and me saying "but, I've tested it pretty extensively
                on data in post processing mode, if the same data is in the tool, I'll have
                failure modes with unusual data, but it should generally work" and having it
                work first time in the tool.

                Dan M.



                _______________________________________________
                http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.