Dijkstra's fulminations against PL/I are well known. They are also without merit.
An even more general formulation is possible. Theoretical computer science, which elucidates algorithms, is often enormously valuable. Equally, like other kinds of mathematics, it can be obvious and boring; but it is unlikely to offend in any more serious way. Academics' opinions about programming languages and the languages they design are usually, on the other hand, nearly worthless and often pernicious. Moreover, with some few but conspicuous exceptions, they are poor, even execrable programmers. Why this is the case is not entirely clear. Programming is very like theorem proving in many ways, and they are often good at that. Typically, they are also intelligent enough to program well; and many programmers are not. One key to the problem is to be found in Mr Crayford's quotation. Dijkstra was obsessed with minimality, with keeping languages small and, like Wirth, with the curious notion that interdictions are helpful: What I do not find interesting or judge susceptible of abuse, you must not use. Orwell made this point, better than I can make it: The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought---that is a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc---should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent upon words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect means. This was done partly by inventing new words but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words . . . Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. (From the Ingsoc appendix to his novel, 1984) I am always pleased to see one of Mr Crayford's posts; I read them all; but it is fair to warn readers of this one that I often, even usually, disagree, "roots and branches", with his views. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
