I think it's because that's what we've told them to ask for :-)
In truth we can't actually program 'everything', I think that's a side-effect
of Godel's incompleteness theorem. But if you were to take 'everything' as
being abstract quantity, the more we write, the closer our estimation comes to
being 'everything'. That perspective lends itself to perhaps measuring the
current state of our industry by how much code we are writing right now. In the
early years, we should be writing more and more. In the later years, less and
less (as we get closer to 'everything'). My sense of the industry right now is
that pretty much every year (factoring in the economy and the waxing or waning
of the popularity of programming) we write more code than the year before. Thus
we are only starting :-)
Paul.
>________________________________
> From: Pascal J. Bourguignon <[email protected]>
>To: Paul Homer <[email protected]>
>Cc: Fundamentals of New Computing <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 3:32:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [fonc] How it is
>
>Paul Homer <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> The on-going work to enhance the system would consistent of modeling data,
>> and creating
>> transformations. In comparison to modern software development, these would
>> be very little
>> pieces, and if they were shared are intrinsically reusable (and
>> recombination).
>
>Yes, that gives L4Gs. Eventually (when we'll have programmed
>everything) all computing will be only done with L4Gs: managers
>specifying their data flows.
>
>But strangely enough, users are always asking for new programs… Is it
>because we've not programmed every functions already, or because we will
>never have them all programmed?
>
>
>--
>__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
>A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
fonc mailing list
[email protected]
http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
