Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
If I remember my EWD's[1] right, whether or not composing music is similar to writing programs was not Dijkstra's point. I paraphrase (possibly from another EWD, can't be bothered to look it up): Computers, in their capacity as a tool, are highly overrated. Dijkstra was referring to the fact (as also pointed out earlier in this thread) that, due to the volatility of things written on a computer (be it text, code or whatever), someone who writes things on a computer is inclined, even encouraged, to write in a very iterative fashion. Aka you just blabber on until you read the whole thing, press shift-pageup delete, and more or less start over (times 20). Dijkstra argued that this leads to bad thinking habits, and maintained a (in those and these days) very special writing style, typically by hand or with a typewriter. It forces you to actually think about a sentence before you put it down. It is a habit I have been trying to cultivate myself, and I must say no one here will be able to convince me that he or she can more quickly outweigh different sentences or paragraph options on screen than I can in my head. Whenever I want to write something down, and I just can't seem to get it right, I just take an empty piece of paper and write it. By hand. With a pen. I'm just old enough that I can remember writing papers in the earlier years of high school, by hand. I used to write them exactly twice: one time to get the text right, one time on the special school paper that I didn't like to waste. I've been re-training myself to be able to do that again. I've actually looked into some fairly old research, concerning the use of word processor and various so called tools in offices (not available online afaik, you'll have to search the library). If I remember correctly, some experiment was set up where professionial writers (journalists,...) were asked to write a number of words, some by hand, some with computers (as they preferred, ie as there habits dictated). It turns out that the writers who write by hand wrote much faster. Other studies typically show a decrease in offcice productivity after the installation of computer supported tools. Even on a recent ICSE (2005 I think), I saw a presentation of a sociologist or psychologist who measered the number of correct diagnosis of breast cancer using mammography, both with and without computer support. The outcome was not spectacularly in favour of the computer-supported case. It makes people lazy, and feel less responsible. Typically the harder to spot cases are better found by doctors without any computer support. I highly recommend reading some EWD's. They have changed my view on computing, programming, writing, basically about everything I do in my daily life. Kurt [1] Over a thousand manuscripts written by Edsger W. Dijkstra over his carreer, all available online. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
Another difference with music that strikes me is the level of abstraction : a note is a note. A line of code (especially in a imperative setting) is much more than a line of code. But this is exactly what semantics is about, or not? It is the question, when you have a set of symbols or abstractions, what sort of things do they represent. Interesting to think that the old greeks and chinese basically used only 4-5 sort of abstractions to explain the different forms of matter in the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element), whereas now we use at least 100 sort of atoms, and millions of sort of molecules. And without the simple abstractions by Euclid (point and lines), we could not evolve mathematics and most of modern sciences. And my point is, that abstractions (concepts) change over time depending on the tools or instruments we use. Without piano's, there would be no Bach, Mozart or Beethoven. And in general, music would have been far less differentiated without the introduction of new tools (compare the differences in compositions between Palestrina, Telemann, Corelli, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg). Also, in painting you see the emergence of many new idea's by having better ways to make paint and colors, and by the uses of lenses. Similarly, Von Neumann machines allows us to think about programming in a certain way, i.e. step-by-step-by-step-by-step but it seems that we start to learn that the amount of steps we can execute per second is not really relevant for many sort of problems. Ok, there are still many area's where we can profit from better algorithms and machines that would improve the calculation of some FFT, but what counts more is often the WAY we think about our abstractions. I think this is why functional programming is interesting. This discussion on programming approaches reminds me as well on the fight between empiricism and rationalism. The former philosophers tried to learn and generalize by experience (maybe the hacker idea), while the latter tried to improve ways of deductive reasoning (the mathematical approach). I think only later philosophers such as Kant could merge concepts from both worlds (from the senses and ideas), but to my knowledge, this had more impact on politics and ethics, rather than science or mathematics. (The source codes by Kant are quite difficult to read. It seems he wanted to write this way to increase the level of thinking.) ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
2006/12/12, Kirsten Chevalier [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [snip] I've been thinking about this. Are there really any programmers who are like Mozart in the way you describe? Donald Knuth might be one, or at least, he wrote that he wrote and debugged all of TeX on paper before entering it into a computer and only found 13 more bugs (or something like that), once he did. I don't remember if it was 13 exactly, but 13 more bugs might be the closest that any programmer gets to Mozart, or at least any programmer in the 20th or early 21st century. But, can you imagine waking up in the middle of the night, sitting down, and writing a compiler from start to finish? Well, of course, easily, undergrads do it all the time during finals period. But, one that works, and that contains original ideas? I know some awesome programmers, but I don't think any of them are quite that awesome. Whereas it's conceivable to imagine somebody writing a piece of music that way, or a poem. Does that just mean that computer science has a long way to go in maturation? Or does it mean something else? Maybe you forget one fact : we're talking about people who have exprerience, not undergrad. Moreover, if we talk about experience in one area (for example computer languages, ore opera/classic music (not electro, pop, rock, jazz and so on), I'm sure there're people who have enough experience in compiler to try out a new idea in a short amount of time. Or in other discipline. I think I've read John Carmack wrote *several* 3d engines for each of their titles that throw them away. Another difference with music that strikes me is the level of abstraction : a note is a note. A line of code (especially in a imperative setting) is much more than a line of code. Ok, one can argue that notes interact together but, imo, not in the same way line of code can do. Programming is complex, you have to layer code on codeon code. Music is quite 'direct', you hear it without thinking. Bye, minh thu ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 12:07:37 +0100, Kirsten Chevalier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12/12/06, Patrick Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure whether this is the right place to discuss computers and programming in general: You're implying that there's a *more* appropriate forum somewhere for discussing analogies between music composition and programming languages? If so, I'd like to know what it is! Maybe the UseNet newsgroup comp.music? -- Met vriendelijke groet, Henk-Jan van Tuyl -- http://Van.Tuyl.eu/ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: https://secure.bmtmicro.com/opera/buy-opera.html?AID=789433 ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
On 12/13/06, minh thu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Another difference with music that strikes me is the level of abstraction : a note is a note. A line of code (especially in a imperative setting) is much more than a line of code. Ok, one can argue that notes interact together but, imo, not in the same way line of code can do. Programming is complex, you have to layer code on codeon code. Music is quite 'direct', you hear it without thinking. I'm not sure that's right, though. Just as a line of code seems to be simple but what's going on at the hardware level is very complex, a musical note is simple but what goes in inside your brain when you hear one is extremely complex, poorly understood, and the details of it aren't accessible to you consciously. You say you hear it without thinking -- exactly, you feel like you're not thinking because of all of the amazingly complicated things that are going on inside. No program is nearly that complex! I suppose I must be channeling Hofstadter. Cheers, Kirsten -- Kirsten Chevalier* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Often in error, never in doubt One of these days and it won't be long / Going down in the valley and sing my song Gonna sing it loud, sing it strong / Let the echo decide if I was right or wrong -- Bob Dylan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
RE: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
Not sure whether this is the right place to discuss computers and programming in general: But Dijkstra's metaphor is suggesting, that while Beethoven learned by experiment and debugging compositions, Mozart did not have a need for reflection while writing down music ? The observation above sounds to me more as a difference between youthful enthousiasm (= allows few time for reflection but a lot for action) and old wisdom (= no risk taking but few action for the young). Also this difference has already been documented in Aristotele's Rethorics. It is of course difficult to transmit the characteristics of old age to young age, or vice versa. Furthermore about Dijkstra's quote on computers and telescopes which I like more. Telescopes are indeed not saying anything at all about the laws of the universe, as computers themselves don't say anything at all about complexity. But I wonder if we would have concepts as gravity or general relativity if we would have never had observed the movement of planets and light with telescopes. Equally, what can parallelity in computers teach us about the concept of monad ? I also find the approach of the designers of telescopes (= computer architects) interesting to understand parallel processes: http://view.eecs.berkeley.edu/wiki/Main_Page I think they use the name dwarfs for monads. PS I like the idea of a book Hakell for Hackers ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
On 12/12/06, Patrick Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not sure whether this is the right place to discuss computers and programming in general: You're implying that there's a *more* appropriate forum somewhere for discussing analogies between music composition and programming languages? If so, I'd like to know what it is! But Dijkstra's metaphor is suggesting, that while Beethoven learned by experiment and debugging compositions, Mozart did not have a need for reflection while writing down music ? I've been thinking about this. Are there really any programmers who are like Mozart in the way you describe? Donald Knuth might be one, or at least, he wrote that he wrote and debugged all of TeX on paper before entering it into a computer and only found 13 more bugs (or something like that), once he did. I don't remember if it was 13 exactly, but 13 more bugs might be the closest that any programmer gets to Mozart, or at least any programmer in the 20th or early 21st century. But, can you imagine waking up in the middle of the night, sitting down, and writing a compiler from start to finish? Well, of course, easily, undergrads do it all the time during finals period. But, one that works, and that contains original ideas? I know some awesome programmers, but I don't think any of them are quite that awesome. Whereas it's conceivable to imagine somebody writing a piece of music that way, or a poem. Does that just mean that computer science has a long way to go in maturation? Or does it mean something else? PS I like the idea of a book Hakell for Hackers Maybe Haskell for People Who Want to Be Hackers? (Since, of course, one should never apply the term hacker to oneself.) I'm not sure whether it's best to aim at people who might be already hackers who want to learn Haskell, or people who are already programmers who want to be Haskell hackers, in particular. I suppose that the first group of people is probably larger. Cheers, Kirsten -- Kirsten Chevalier* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Often in error, never in doubt What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Henry ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
You're implying that there's a *more* appropriate forum somewhere for discussing analogies between music composition and programming languages? If so, I'd like to know what it is! Yes, music and programming languages are ultimately phenomena of our human brains/minds. Therefore, the expression of music or algorithms touch as much mathematics as they touch the field of philosophy (and here the philosophy of the mind). Sometimes there are interesting posts in comp.ai.philosophy and attempts to discuss the semantics in Mozart or Beethoven's style: http://groups.google.de/groups/search?hl=deq=beethoven+mozart+comparison I've been thinking about this. Are there really any programmers who are like Mozart in the way you describe? No, and I think Dijkstra perception is a bit flawed with respect to Mozart's compositions. Certainly, there are very strong rewarding mechanisms in the brain which can be activated by special circumstances and allow to develop special capabilities (Feynman spoke about falling in love with an idea). But it is not highly desirable for a society to have every member to develop radical new idea's or skills. A species would quickly stop to reproduce if everyone would be sitting in a room thinking about a certain abstract subject. Whereas it's conceivable to imagine somebody writing a piece of music that way, or a poem. I think in general it is underestimated how rare such moments of divine inspiration are in reality. There is this nice speech by Wislawa Szymborska about the difficulties of inspiration in poetry (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1996/index.html) and also the late Beethoven explains this in his music: Have a listening to the 3rd movement of his op.106. In my view, he explains about the suffering of a lonely genius, and then starts laughing about it because our own nature changes all the time, and that there is almost no way to control these changes, nor on time that passed away or predicting times to come, neither a judgement whether he is happy or not with this fact of life- I find it a very powerful observation on how learning works. ___ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Mozart versus Beethoven (was: Writing Haskell For Dummies ...)
Hello, In the spring of 1978, I wrote a (circa) 700-word microprogram for multiprecision integer arithmetic on paper, typed it into a computer, had it cleaned of syntax errors by the micro-code assembler, printed it, and spent much of the summer in my mother's summer house debugging this program text by hand, without the use of any automated computing device of any kind. I found lots of errors, corrected them, rechecked the result by hand, found additional errors, corrected those and, finally, (in the autumn of 1978) ran the program for the first time. Every multiprecision integer operation but division worked. After some debugging, a single (rather silly) error was found in the division routine. I never found additional errors in this code. This is not intended to imply that I am a Mozart rather than a Beethoven (most likely neither!) in the field of programming. Rather, it is an attempt to point out that the development environments that we use these days encourage a completely different mode of work than what was used some 20-30 years ago. Thus, today, I do like I have the impression most programmers do, compile and run (tests) as often as possible, even every very few keystrokes of code changes. I am not an expert in the difference between composers like Mozart and Beethoven, but my expert father tells me that Mozart, reputedly, had a phenomenal musical memory that allowed him both to recall large sequences of music played to him and, undoubtably also, work with long sequences of hypothetical music, that is, music being composed, for prolonged periods, in his head, without the need to make any notes on paper etc. It seems that such differences in modes of work does not imply any similar interesting or usefully utilizable difference in the way we should produce our programs. The analogy seems irrelevant, in other words. Best regards Thorkil On Tuesday 12 December 2006 12:07, Kirsten Chevalier wrote: ... I've been thinking about this. Are there really any programmers who are like Mozart in the way you describe? Donald Knuth might be one, or at least, he wrote that he wrote and debugged all of TeX on paper before entering it into a computer and only found 13 more bugs (or something like that), once he did. I don't remember if it was 13 exactly, but 13 more bugs might be the closest that any programmer gets to Mozart, or at least any programmer in the 20th or early 21st century. ... Cheers, Kirsten -- Kirsten Chevalier* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Often in error, never in doubt What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Henry ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
