On 1/25/14, John Gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
-- 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
