Ok - that makes sense. Good point.

Would it be fair to say that we're really searching for is a formally specified 
processor that makes the programmer as efficient as possible?

Michael

On Mar 7, 2010, at 23:25 , Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:

> 
> On 2010-03-05, at 00:06, Michael Arnoldus wrote:
>> So my suggestions was to use complexity in the context of improving 
>> programmer (FSE) productivity. And I hinted at some possible measurements 
>> that might be useful for this. I however do not in any way pretend this is 
>> clear enough to work as a clear definition of complexity or even metrics. 
>> And - for me at least - is not clear to me that a single metric will be 
>> sufficient with the chosen context and purpose (I'm aware we're not even 
>> clear on purpose yet).
>> 
>> I'm not able to pick a single definition of complexity that fits my (maybe 
>> our?) context and purpose. I suspect that finding the right meaning and 
>> definition of complexity in this context is more than half the solution - as 
>> it is with most really interesting problems.
>> 
>> If you have a suggestion I'm all ears :-)
> 
> I'm afraid that you cannot ask either to improve the programmer productivity 
> without specifying a target "processor".
> 
> Taking again the example of ("Compute the pay of each employee of my company" 
> + programmer) system, the productivity of programmer A could be infinite, if 
> the target "processor" is programmer B and A can say to B: "Compute the pay 
> of each employee of my company".
> 
> But if we consider as "processor" in the target (program+processor) system  a 
> programmer C who doesn't know anything about pay, then programmer A will have 
> more work, and his productivity will be finite: he will have to specify to 
> programmer C a program where all the pay relative algorithms are explicited.
> 
> And if the target processor is an 6502, then the productivity of programmer A 
> will be abysmal, without tools.   If you add tools, eg. a C compiler, then it 
> means the target processor is not a 6502, but a C machine, and the 
> productivity of programmer A is accordingly increased.
> 
> 
> Well, this not new, it has been known since the 60's that the productivity of 
> programmers is in direct proportion to the high levelness of the target 
> machine, that is the "programming language" used,  what I call "processor" in 
> my (program+processor) systems.
> 
> -- 
> __Pascal Bourguignon__
> http://www.informatimago.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fonc mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc

Reply via email to