It's tricky to say things the right way. My OS professor in college once complained that her OS professor in college would use ridiculous hifalutin expressions such as "Quantum is the ``granularity of the pre-emption.``" [1] Christopher Strachey was making that comment in addressing computer science graduate and undergraduate students. He was the founder of the field of denotational semantics, and the book I cited helped elucidate for many the differences between denotational semantics and operational semantics.
Promoting a how-to mechanism in the context of what-to only makes sense under one condition. The how-to must produce an order of magnitude change in things compared to other how-to's. [1] http://www.sci.csueastbay.edu/~billard/cs4560/node21.html On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Richard Karpinski <[email protected]> wrote: > I find that what-to before how-to admonition confusing when proposed by > folks promoting a how-to mechanism. Off hand, I'd presume that if you pick a > really good how-to, the clarity gained will help you get the what-to more > right. We don't get to make an argument all at once, we have to do it a > little bit at a time so anything that makes the current state more obvious > should help. No? > > Richard > > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 11:17 AM, John Zabroski <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Michael Arnoldus <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> We're searching for a way to solve orthogonal problems orthogonally. >> Specification is completely separate from implementation. The AUSTIN >> Protocol Compiler project [1] has a really good example of TCP/IP Networking >> stack as implemented in BSD 4.4 and presented in Wright and Stevens TCP/IP >> Illustrated Volume 2. They argue that, if you look at the C language >> implementation: >> >> [...] important details handling intrinsic or extrinsic issues frequently >> comprise only a small fraction of the implementation, while these details >> require a great deal of research and constitute the largest part of the >> difficulties in protocol development. For example, Nagle's algorithm[9], >> which adaptively inhibits small messages in TCP connections and thus helps >> to avoid network congestion collapse, requires approximately four lines of >> code in TCP/IP Illustrated's presentation. Refinements to Nagle's >> algorithm, originally published in 1984, are still being suggested; for >> example, by Minshall, et al., in 1999 [10]. >> >> The key to understanding and implementing any complex system with vital >> but miniscule details, particularly in such an ad-hoc environment, is >> modularization. In case of network protocols, modularization almost always >> involves layering. >> >> Hopefully, if you're on this mailing list, you're familiar with Ian >> Piumarta's work on A Minimal Architecture for TCP/IP [2]. Unfortunately, >> Ian has not written a full technical report on this subject. If he did, it >> would make sense to cite the Austin Protocol Compiler project, as it appears >> to be the most advanced project in terms of addressing orthogonal (TCP/IP) >> networking problems orthogonally. In other words, using approaches to >> building operating systems other than just the layering approach describes >> by Dijkstra in The Structure of the 'THE'-multiprogramming System [3] and >> also the aspect-oriented approach by Kiczales [4], which is commonly >> confused by researchers and practitioners as being what Dijkstra meant by >> "the separation of concerns" [5], what Christopher Strachey meant by "*Figure >> out* what you want to *say* before you *figure out* how to *say* it" [6], >> and what Joseph Goguen ambitioned for OBJ and TATAMI, using such powerful >> ideas as inductionless induction as an example of "proof-by-consistency" >> [7]. >> >> >> Informal list of references >> [1] http://books.google.com/books?id=P4vmo2Sdjg8C >> [2] A Tiny TCP/IP Using Non-deterministic Parsing, >> http://vpri.org/pdf/tr2007008_steps.pdf - Page 17 >> [3] >> http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD01xx/EWD196.html >> [4] The Art of the Metaobject Protocol, by Gregor Kiczales, Jim des >> Rivieres and Daniel G. Bobrow. 1991. >> [5] >> http://userweb.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD04xx/EWD447.html >> [6] Denotational Semantics: The Scott-Strachey Approach to Programming >> Language Theory, by Joseph Stoy. 1977. See preface for quote. >> [7] "Tossing Algebraic Flowers Down the Great Divide." Joseph Goguen. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fonc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >> >> > > > -- > Richard Karpinski, Nitpicker extraordinaire > 148 Sequoia Circle, > Santa Rosa, CA 95401 > Home: 707-546-6760 > http://nitpicker.pbwiki.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > [email protected] > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
