Poetry in programming (Was: Re: Comparing OO against Structured Methodologies
Tentacle of Igor Chudov
: >(This implies that object-oriented technology in the broader sense can
: >impart a sense of joy and accomplishment, which beats bone-head
: >programming in C, C++, or SmallTalk.)
: I understand the "sense of joy", but it is not isolated to OO. I have
: experienced this "joy" when using other methods too. I have
: experienced this "joy" when using no method at all. I have even
: experienced this "joy" when writing bone-head programs in C, C++ and
: Smalltalk. That "joy" is the reason that I am a software engineer.
: (Would that that were true for more software engineers.) I love
: designing and writing sofware. It is a good thing people pay me for
: it, because if they didn't, I would pay them.
Actually, in many ways programming is close to poetry. Just as in
poetry, good programmers feel joy and inspiration solving interesting
problems. Reading a good program is no more boring than reading a
good poem. Small programs can be just as funny as poetic jokes. I
myself experience great pleasure writing code that I consider good. A
great emotional attachment to programming languages and techniques
cannot be explained by rational reasons.
Just as with poetry, there are true geniuses like Knuth, Stallman
or Ritchie, and programming has its share of careless people,
graphomaniacs and crooks. People who write programs for salary's sake
only are just as universally despised as greedy poets. There are even
"schools" in programming, mainstream and non-mainstream methods.
There is even programming decadance (obfuscated C).
Good programming solutions live forever and are infinitely reused.
Programming is poetry for the right brain hemisphere. It is just
as inspirational - remember programmers who work nights long. It
spills it influence to other areas, such as mathematics. As Misha
Verbitsky suggested, some works of programmers (GNU Manifesto)
extend even to the heavens of philosophy.
Unfortunately, left-hemisphere ("normal") poets and programmers
have hard times understanding and recognizing each other.
- Igor.
Chris Morgan
Chudov) wrote:
[SNIP!]
> Programming is poetry for the right brain hemisphere. It is just
> as inspirational - remember programmers who work nights long. It
> spills it influence to other areas, such as mathematics. As Misha
> Verbitsky suggested, some works of programmers (GNU Manifesto)
> extend even to the heavens of philosophy.
Yes, I find the GNU manifesto rather beautiful as well. It infects friends
of mine who care about programming with a shared sense of the possiblities
of community among programmers. I remember it every time I feel the urge
to hoard information rather than share it, and make the right choice.
Can we nominate Richard Stallman for a Nobel prize?
Chris
-------------------------------------
-- Chris Morgan, BAeSEMA Limited
-- chris....@baesema.co.uk
-------------------------------------
-- Team Ada
-------------------------------------
Tentacle of Igor Chudov
: In article <45h5gt$l...@taco.cc.ncsu.edu>, ich...@galstar.com (Igor
: Chudov) wrote:
: [SNIP!]
: > Programming is poetry for the right brain hemisphere. It is just
: > as inspirational - remember programmers who work nights long. It
: > spills it influence to other areas, such as mathematics. As Misha
: > Verbitsky suggested, some works of programmers (GNU Manifesto)
: > extend even to the heavens of philosophy.
: Yes, I find the GNU manifesto rather beautiful as well. It infects friends
: of mine who care about programming with a shared sense of the possiblities
: of community among programmers. I remember it every time I feel the urge
: to hoard information rather than share it, and make the right choice.
: Can we nominate Richard Stallman for a Nobel prize?
I'd be for it, wholeheartedly.
- Igor.
Robert Dewar
free software. Nobel was rather specific on the fields to which the
prize should be given (there is for example no Nobel prize in mathematics,
supposedly because his wife ran off with a mathematician)
Note that Stallman did receive a McArthur "genius" award, which was a
well-deserved acknowledgement of his contributions.
Erik Naggum
| The first two first rate scholars; Don Knuth is a first rate
| educator.
|
| Stallman is not a scholar, or an educator. Stallman is an avowed
| humanist, placing man at the center of the universe, not God.
a religious fanatic at work. how quaint.
| Stallman has had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the development of
| Eiffel, as far as I know, and no Eiffel compiler vendor has bought into
| the lame gnu license copywrong.
this may be why Eiffel is not much used.
| Your argument is invalid, and your ethics reek of subterfuge.
before anyone replies to "the retired reverend", note that his attitude to
responding to those who reply to him is as follows:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Colin James III (The Rt Rev'd) does not read electronic mail which is
unsolicited, as was the post above, but may be reached by US Mail at:
CEC Services
2080 Kipling Street
Lakewood, Colorado 80215-1502 U S A
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ignore him. there are always people who will work against anything great.
typically, they hide behind some religion to denigrate good men to please
their own fantasies.
RMS has certainly changed my mind over the past decade, from ardent
believer in the right to control software, but this is like refusing
students of the theater to read plays unless they pay for the right to
perform it, to ardent believer in the benefits of reading source code.
like in all other written art, one learns by studying the masters. RMS has
made this possible and now also popular in the art of software. if
anything, the lasting effect of his work will be improved skills among
programmers, a true historic effect on the art. considering the quality of
commercial software, we should be thankful that someone is workign to give
students of programming access to the great lore of their predecessors,
instead of reinventing wheels over and over again.
I'd nominate RMS for a Nobel Prize in Literature, for bringing the art of
writing computer software into the realm of the literate.
#<Erik 3023193775>
--
a good picture may well be worth a thousand words, but on the WWW,
even bad imagemaps cost tens of thousands of words.
Bruce Link
: Stallman is not a scholar, or an educator. Stallman is an avowed
: humanist, placing man at the center of the universe, not God.
The religious views of Stallman, or Colin have nothing to do with the topics
of these groups, and have no place here.
: Stallman has had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the development of
: Eiffel, as far as I know, and no Eiffel compiler vendor has bought
: into the lame gnu license copywrong.
Why are you discussing Eiffel in your post to comp.software-eng,comp.object,
comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.lisp? You didn't even include comp.lang.eiffel.
: Your argument is invalid, and your ethics reek of subterfuge.
These ad hominem attacks are not worthy of someone who claims religious
righteousness. I can only assume that some nut is impersonating the "Rt.
Rev'd" Colin James III.
: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
: Colin James III, Principal Scientist cja...@cec-services.com
: CEC Services, 2080 Kipling St, Lakewood, CO 80215-1502 USA
: Voice: 303.231.9437; Facsimile: .231.9438; Data: .231.9434
: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Link |Team OS/2
b...@mda.ca or bl...@wimsey.com |Team Ada
Jay Martin
>In article <4662m6$n...@caleddon.dircon.co.uk>, Simon Brooke
><si...@rheged.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>[SNIP]
> programmers first. There are some people -- a very few -- who through their
>> contribution have changed the nature of the task and thus of our lives.
>>
>> To name my particular heroes (one could name others)
>> Alan Turing set the intellectual framework for programming;
>> Donald Knuth contributed greatly to the aesthetic framework;
>> Richard Stallman has contributed greatly to the ethical framework.
>[SNIP]
>In addition to the GNU manifesto and project (especially emacs and GCC)
>which most here know and appreciate, I think his insight into the GNAT
>library model (no library, reparse on the fly) was a major breakthrough.
>With enough memory around, GNAT demolishes all other known compilers. When
>I go back to any old compiler I just don't like it (maybe that's
>irrational but it's true).
I think the GNAT library design is trash, not some miracle of Computer
Science. My objection is that it makes a connection between file
names and library units that shouldn't be there. Treating Ada files
like ".h" include files is not my idea of brilliant. There is no
reason in my mind why the classical library approach could not be same
or faster than the ".h" include approach. I am not impressed with GNU
software since it is written in (or compiles) C which in my view just
degrades and stops progress in the programming community. I use GCC
and emacs but I am not really impressed with the design of emacs.
I think Stallmans leftist free-software philosophy/movement is great.
On to Knuth, his contribution to the field of Algorithms and CS Math
is unquestionable. I question more the genis "programming" side.
- His Algorithm books used (bleh) assembly.
- Defended the use of GOTO's in the 70's.
- I am not impressed with "Literate Programming" which basically
just shoved typeset comments in the code. Even worse the system
took over the structuring of programs: subroutines, abstract
data structures, objects, etc and replaced them with some silly
paragraph structure and super macro pre-processor.
I think more of: Ichbiah, Stroustrup and Meyers in the programming area.
Jay
Igor Chudov
* The first two first rate scholars; Don Knuth is a first rate
* educator.
* Stallman is not a scholar, or an educator. Stallman is an avowed
* humanist, placing man at the center of the universe, not God.
:)
* Stallman has had absolutely no effect whatsoever on the development of
* Eiffel, as far as I know, and no Eiffel compiler vendor has bought
* into the lame gnu license copywrong.
Which is one of the main reasons why Eiffel has little popularity.
Think about it.
--
- Igor. (My opinions only) http://www.galstar.com/~ichudov/index.html
For public PGP key, finger me or send email with Subject "send pgp key"
You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing
more to add, but what you have nothing more to take away.
- Antoine de Saint Exupery.
Chris Morgan
[SNIP]
programmers first. There are some people -- a very few -- who through their
> contribution have changed the nature of the task and thus of our lives.
>
> To name my particular heroes (one could name others)
> Alan Turing set the intellectual framework for programming;
> Donald Knuth contributed greatly to the aesthetic framework;
> Richard Stallman has contributed greatly to the ethical framework.
[SNIP]
In addition to the GNU manifesto and project (especially emacs and GCC)
which most here know and appreciate, I think his insight into the GNAT
library model (no library, reparse on the fly) was a major breakthrough.
With enough memory around, GNAT demolishes all other known compilers. When
I go back to any old compiler I just don't like it (maybe that's
irrational but it's true).
Anyway, what I believe Richard wants more than gongs is contributions,
which is why I got my company to buy a box full of manuals for GCC and
emacs from them. This helps the FSF and so furthers the GNU ideal. The
fact that they are well-produced and exceptionally well written, and emacs
is boosting productivity all around me is, or course, very welcome as
well. You buy manuals from Sun if you buy their software, so you should
consider buying manuals from FSF if you use their software to ensure it
continues to develop.
e-mail responses are more likely to reach me.
Chris Morgan
Martin) wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think the GNAT library design is trash, not some miracle of Computer
> Science. My objection is that it makes a connection between file
> names and library units that shouldn't be there. Treating Ada files
> like ".h" include files is not my idea of brilliant. There is no
> reason in my mind why the classical library approach could not be same
> or faster than the ".h" include approach. I am not impressed with GNU
> software since it is written in (or compiles) C which in my view just
> degrades and stops progress in the programming community. I use GCC
> and emacs but I am not really impressed with the design of emacs.
> I think Stallmans leftist free-software philosophy/movement is great.
I dont think its a "miracle" either. However it's a big step forward
compared to other Ada compilers that I have used. There is an extremely
important distinction between the GNAT library model and C or C++. For
example, I don't recall having to put hash defines in Ada specs to stop
the compiler doing them twice as you have to in the C++ I use. As to the
filename limitation, well I'm sure someone will eventually do the tool
that hides this from you if you want. I personally don't see a problem.
As for GNU being poor because of C, well that is just prejudice! How
many other people do you think would criticize the writers of an operating
system for using C? The phrase portable assembler describes C perfectly.
Emacs is mostly written in elisp, and now with GNAT you could contribute
software in Ada95 if you so chose.
At least we can agree on the GNU ideal anyway.
Regards,
James W. Bennett
>Jay thinks that the library design is trash, but actually his objection seems
>rather slight, he just does not like the fact that file names are connected
>to unit names.
[Snip]
>So far, Jay's note is the only strong vote I have seen for moving in
>this direction. For myself, having used many Ada compilers, I much
>prefer the GNAT approach. I don't mind having to name my files
>canonically, it seems like a good idea in any case, and the advantages
>of having absolutely NO centralized data structures, and a compilation
>model that is similar to the rest of the world and very light, seems
>a real advantage.
>
>So, is Jay a lone voice or a small minority, or is it worth adding
>this extra level of optional complexity to GNAT (it would not be a big
>implementation effort by any means -- I am more concerned with the
>extra complexity of use and description than in the implementation
>effort).
>
I wouldn't put it quite as strong as Jay, I don't think the approach is
complete trash. However, after having used many Ada compilers over the
last 10 years, I happen to very much like the DEC approach of library
management.
--
Jim Bennett
ji...@tara-lu.com
Robert Dewar
"or faster than the ".h" include approach. I am not impressed with GNU
software since it is written in (or compiles) C which in my view just"
That's a common misconception with respect to GNAT. It is completely
False. The GNAT front end is written in Ada 95, not in C. It does not
in
any sense compile C or compile into C.
Jay thinks that the library design is trash, but actually his objection seems
rather slight, he just does not like the fact that file names are connected
to unit names.
Fair enough, but let's look at this issue in a little calmer manner. First,
if you want a system with a central library, where there is no connection
between file names and unit names, this is easily achievable with a simple
set of shell scripts. Jean Pierre Rosen has for instance written such a
system as a set of simple REXX scripts for OS/2. Of course if you adopt this
approach then you get all the problems (maybe Jay thinks they are advantages
in his view) of having to follow a specific order of compilation.
It would also be quite easy to optionally have a mechanism of using a
centralized file which did file name translations. Indeed this was part of
the original design.
The advantage is that you break the need for a connection between the names.
The disavdnatgae is that you now have a centralized data structure, which
existing configuration management systems don't know about, and which has
to handle common access from parallel compilations. Also, if this file is
yupdated by compilation, you also have introduced an order of compilation
requirement.
We discussed this a couple of times before, once on the old gnatchat mailing
list and once on comp.lang.ada. The consensus in these discussions was that
it was not worth the trouble, and extra complexity. It is certainly
something that can be revisited.
Right now, my impression is that most GNAT users are either quite happy with
the naming convention (it actually has some definite advantages, you know
immediately what file to look in from the name of the unit). Others find
that gnatchop meets their needs.
But we can certainly revisit the file name mapping option sometime. I
believe that the Intermetrics compiler, while pretty similar to the
GNAT approach in its source orientation, except that it has such a
centralized name translation file.
mfi...@inmind.com
>The phrase portable assembler describes C perfectly.
I have to take exception to this. I have seen people state
this over and over and it is flat wrong. C is no more a portable
assembler than PASCAL is. It is simply richer. It contains
all of the traditional "high level" control structures. It
contains the expected primitive data elements. And it
just happens to contain a few additional operations on
those primitive data elements -- but far from the entire
set that you might expect in an assembler.
What it does NOT contain that assembler languages
contain, as a rule of thumb, are...
1. Registers. The "register" keyword doesn't count because
it isn't really specifying a register. It is just giving the
compiler an optimization hint.
2. Many operators. Where are the arithmetic right shifts?
Certainly (as per the standard) not in C. The vendor may
or may not choose to provide them. Where are the rotates?
Where is the ability to have label variables -- so that you
can directly implement things like the switch control
structure at a low level.
3. Where is the processor information such as carry
flags? Such as result flags from comparisons?
4. Where are the assembler "statements" which correspond
to two or three address expressions. The C expression is
too high level to be considered a candidate because you
cannot control the precise statements generated and their
order of generation.
What would a portable assembler language look like? It would
probably have an infinite number of registers, each of a
specific length. It would have the missing operations. It would
have the carry flag or some other way to directly access the
results of comparisions and shifts/rotates. The carry flag is
esential to many assembler algorithms because it is the basic
mechanism used to (efficiently) combine operations to obtain
similar operations on larger operands. It would have available
the ability to explictly sign or zero extend values. It would
have the X * X -> XX (single precision input to double precision
output using two registers) type of multiplication which is essential
to efficient implementation of unbounded arithmetic precision
packages.
I am interested in defining a portable assembler language that
captures most of the assembler facilities used by application
programming (ignoring the operating system part of the hardware.)
C is a far cry from what is needed. It is simply a high level
language (no less so that PASCAL which nobody has ever
described as a portable assembler language) with a few more
operations than most languages and not as many as some.
Michael Lee Finney
Job Honig
Jay Martin <jma...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>I think the GNAT library design is trash, not some miracle of Computer
>Science. My objection is that it makes a connection between file
>names and library units that shouldn't be there. Treating Ada files
This has been discussed several times now... If you look at the full set
of Gnat tools, there is no such connection AT ALL. If you use gnatchop,
you may choose the file names you want; gnatchop will generate the
"intermediate" source files that gnat requires.
Job Honig
Delft University of Technology
Robert Dewar
"I wouldn't put it quite as strong as Jay, I don't think the approach is
complete trash. However, after having used many Ada compilers over the
last 10 years, I happen to very much like the DEC approach of library
management."
One thing to investigate here is what it is that you liked about the
DEC approach. Any or all of it can be simply duplicated with GNAT. As
far as I know, only Jean Pierre Rosen has actually done the work of
duplicating a conventional Ada library system. Since the amount of work
is trivial, the fact that no one has done it says something already!
Things I do NOT like about the conventional library system are:
o Required order of compilation
o One compilation affects others
o Meaning of program depends on order of compilation
o Conventional tools don't understand Ada library
Now if you find these advantages, you can certainly rig up a little script
to give identical effects with GNAT. Here is an outline of how it would work:
Establish a directory to be used as the Ada library. This is a black box as
far as the user of the system is concerned, like a traditional Ada library.
Into this directory will go source, ali, and o files, but the source files
are not the input source files that the programmer deals with.
To compile a new file:
gnatchop the file into a temporary directory (not the Ada library
directory).
In the order that the files were gnatchopped, copy them into the Ada
library directory and compile them.
Note: use the -r switch on the gnatchop so that error messages and the
debugger refer back to the original files.
When you are ready to build a program, use gnatmake to build the main
program from the library directory.
That's all there is to it. This scheme will exactly duplicate the behavior
of a conventional library system, including enforcing an order of compilation,
meaning of program depends on order of compilation, parallel compilation has
to be very careful of the shared data base etc.
I certainly wold not take this approach, because it seems to work hjard to
establish a set of dsadvantages, but one persons' disadvantage is another
persons desirable feature, so if you want this you can have it.
However, when I have talked further with people syaing that they like
for example the DEC library system, it is not so much that they are after
the fundamental semantics of a centralized library system. Instead what
they often are asking for is a nice interface for managing their library.
In normal use of GNAT, your library is your set of sources. You absolutely
need tools for managing this set of sources that are analogous to the kind
of commands used to manage a DEC library.
If that is what you are after, then I think it is better to concentrate
on building these tools with respect to the working set of sources.
Certainly I have dozens of command files (shell scripts) around in my
OS/2 environment to provide this kind of management.
Creating these tools is basically trivial, because there is no mystery
here -- GNAT source files are just ASCII files. For example, you might
want to use CONTINUOUS to manage your source files for you if you
like that
moel.
What we need to build up is a standard set of such tools. One trivial
example that has been around for a while is gnatk8, the little utility
that gives the file name given the unit name. Obviously you need the
inverse of this, that gives the unit name, given the file name. The SGI
version has the latter utility in the distribution, and we should certainly
add it -- it is on the list of things to do! These are of course building
blocks for other scripts.
By the way, the mapping of unit names to file names is entirely concentrated
in one unit of the compiler, Fname, so it is easy to play with alternative
schemes, including for eample a centralized directory.
A nice scheme would be to have a name server that is separate from the
compiler. The default server would just do the alogorithmic translation
that is done now, but alternative servers could provide more general
directory based, or even configuration manager based, approaches to
the mapping from unit names to file names.
This actually seems quite attractive. I wonder how much extra overhead
it would introduce, and how much extra complexity. The server would need
to be some DLL, or DLL equivalent -- interesting, worth looking into!
Anyway, what is helpful in this discussion is to try to be as specific
as you can about what you would like to be able to do, and what features
you would like to see. GNAT is really simply a building block used to
assemble an Ada compilaion system. The approach it takes israther low
level, which has the advantage that it can fit into almost any scheme
that you have in mind.
In some cases, this is achieved simply with a set of scripts (for example,
I never type a gcc command, I use one of my higher level scripts). In
other cases, quite small changes to the compiler may enable solutions
that meet currently unmet needs.
Chris Morgan
> In <chris.morgan-2...@baesema4.demon.co.uk>,
chris....@baesema.co.uk (Chris Morgan) writes:
>
> >The phrase portable assembler describes C perfectly.
>
> I have to take exception to this. I have seen people state
> this over and over and it is flat wrong. C is no more a portable
Unix was the first portable operating system because it was rewritten in
C in 1973. WindowsNT is also largely written in C and is hosted on several
leading architectures. This fact is often quoted as one of the reason
these large powerful and successful operating systems exist. No one ever
means to suggest you can do without direct access to assembly language for
certain tasks.
Anyway, if I drop the offending phrase and try to explain what I meant,
C is beneficial to use for some low-level functionality which might
otherwise be expressed in (less-portable) assembler. If a 'real' portable
assembler were made, it might be vastly superior. However in the situation
we have currently, it makes no sense to attack C or GNU software because
Ada is better, since they're not really addressing the same problem.
Cheers,
Daniel Finster
[re: sharing sources, etc]
RMS has made this possible and now also popular in the art of software.
I'm sorry, but RMS has done no such thing. The sharing of source code
has always been popular amongst Real Computers. All RMS has done is
encourage it in the eunuchs world. In fact, it used to be normal that
when you bought a computer, you got the monitor sources with it.
RMS was an extremely brilliant person. His contribution to the computer
world -before- 1980 was exceptional. But somewhere between 1980-83
something seems to have happened to him: he was forced to cram a 36-bit
brain into a 32-bit world load; it seems to be turning him into cream
cheese.
RMS' ITS EMACS was amazing and a Great Leap Forward; RMS' GNU Emacs
pales in comparison to what other people have done--Symbolics Zmacs,
Twenex EMACS, Multics Emacs, etc. This I believe is primarily because
of the difficulty of writing decent software on a eunuchs platform. I
admit GNU Emacs comes closer to winning than anything else that exists
on eunuchs, but in the end it is dead on the game grid.
I think RMS' problem -is- eunuchs, in fact: the decay of his brain is
well coordinated with his eunuchification.
I disagree that RMS should have a nobel prize--it wouldn't do him any
good. What I think would do him the most good is for someone to give
him a KL10 and a TV terminal, and incinerate all his current losing
machines.
You know, eunuchs really is a damn good name for such a dickless
operating system.
Albert F. Niessner III
.
.
.
SNIP
Establish a directory to be used as the Ada library. This is a black box as
far as the user of the system is concerned, like a traditional Ada library.
Into this directory will go source, ali, and o files, but the source files
are not the input source files that the programmer deals with.
To compile a new file:
gnatchop the file into a temporary directory (not the Ada library
directory).
In the order that the files were gnatchopped, copy them into the Ada
library directory and compile them.
Note: use the -r switch on the gnatchop so that error messages and the
debugger refer back to the original files.
When you are ready to build a program, use gnatmake to build the main
program from the library directory.
.
.
.
SNIP
This is what I tried to do with the original "librarian" that
I posted a while back. However, the -r on gnatchop does not retain
the path that the source is located in. If I do a
gnatchop -r hello_world I get a
pragma Source_Reference (000001, "hello_world.ada");
This does not have the source path, so if I then go and move the
.ad[bs], .o, and .ali files I loose the correct referencing to
the source -- I tried it with the full path name on the gnatchop
and found it and got the same pragma. So the above steps are really
not complete if you want to use the fully integrated emacs and gnat
(gdb is really the one who has a problem finding the source).
What I would like to see for "librarian" support is switch added to
gnatbl and gcc that would allow me to define how to map a unit name
to a file name. If the option is not used, then use the current
method. It seems this would solve most everyone's complaint about
the naming convention of the source because they could do it their
way instead of living with someone elses standard.
I don't know much about debuggers -- other than how to use them --
but when source is compiled is the complete path and file name of the
source saved in the object code as debugging info? So given the above
wish were to come true, would gcc use the full path and file name of
the source being used in the object file allowing gdb to always find
the source file correctly? Or do you always have to use directory and
path commands in gdb? Either is fine I'm just curious, and it seems
it would be better for the debugger if I always used the directory and
path commands.
Even when I use the gnatchop -r, gdb still looks for the .adb files
instead of the original. Want proof:
afniii@hades : gnatchop -r -w hello_world.ada
splitting hello_world.ada into:
hello_world.adb
afniii@hades : more hello_world.adb
pragma Source_Reference (000001, "hello_world.ada");
.
.
.
afniii@hades : gcc -c -ggdb hello_world.adb
afniii@hades : gnatbl hello_world.ali
afniii@hades : rm hello_world.adb
afniii@hades : gdb hello_world
GDB is free software and you are welcome to distribute copies of it
under certain conditions; type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB; type "show warranty" for details.
GDB 4.14 (sparc-sun-solaris2.3),
Copyright 1995 Free Software Foundation, Inc...
(gdb) break _ada_hello_world
Breakpoint 1 at 0x1e4cc: file hello_world.adb, line 12.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/afniii/Temporary_Space/Ada_Temp/hello_world
Breakpoint 1, _ada_hello_world () at hello_world.adb:12
hello_world.adb:12: No such file or directory.
(gdb)
It still looks for the .adb file -- I deleted .adb so that the error
would be obvious. This is the generic version of gdb NOT the Ada
aware version -- because it supported only with SunOS 4.1.3 (when I
last checked several weeks ago).
Erik Naggum
| some of us think eunuchs is _better_ than the (d)ossified crap that is
| sold to the masses.
[Daniel Finster]
| I wouldn't know. I havn't used an MS-DOS system in over 3 years.
| MS-DOS is hideous, but there are ways in which eunuchs is worse.
you missed the point. by emphasising "better", I intended to prepare for
the point that was coming up later, about marketing. we use "better" tools,
not "good" tools. at the very least, we focus on the better sides, not on
the worst possible aspects. otherwise, going nuts fast is inevitable.
| He's still a flake though. Here's a piece of some mail I got in
| response to my original post:
really? we discussing the psychology of RMS, now? you're taking us on a
field trip of your strongest dislikes, aren't you, Daniel? what for?
| I just wanted you to know that you are not at all off-base in
| your assessment. Surely, a huge load of weird derelict disciples
| of Stallman will send you reams of hate mail accusing you of hate
| crimes and all sorts of lunatic ravings. Just ignore them. Most
| of the flakes are also homeless bums who call themselves ``GNU
| volunteers''.
I wonder what's wrong with whoever wrote this. I've seen a lot of people
express the most intense hatred for RMS, with an accompanying deep interest
in vilifying those who work on GNU projects or with him. frankly, whatever
it is that might be true in what they say, why should anybody listen to
them when _they_ don't want others to listen to someone that _they_ think
is mad? it doesn't make much sense, does it?
I think I shall never see... someone able to criticize RMS or GNU without
going into patently silly attacks of rampant emotionalism. just because
one thinks something that someone does is good, deserves applause, and
should be widely recognized, doesn't mean that one is in love with the guy,
is willing to swallow his every utterance, is a "weird derelict disciple"
(nor an ordinary disciple), nor will defend him on every count, but it
does, of course, mean that those who attack him on the basis of irrelevant
feelings or issues should be countered simply because they do not present
the whole truth, only the part of it that they self-servingly want to be
perceived as the whole truth in order to be relieved of the duty to present
actual arguments. a clear case of "argumentum ad hominem".
_any_ sense of fairness and justice demands that both sides be heard, and
the kind of one-sided prejudice that we see in attacking and judging RMS
can only be to the discredit of the attackers.
I mean, Louis Farrakhan managed to lead this half-million man march, and
although he is the most despicable black man that walks the surface of the
North American land, people _still_ could discuss the purpose of the march
without getting all worked up and getting fanatically myopic about the
issue of his racism, anti-semittism, and sexism. how? the man is clearly
sick and sick men who manage to command half a million men is a clear and
present danger to any society. but it's RMS that needs to be attacked.
pity the small minds that can see no further than their nose.
furthermore, normal people lead normal lives. those individuals who cross
the prevalent views in society will be branded as mad and shunned by their
contemporaries, but may be hailed as forerunners by a future society and by
those who are less fearful of change and novelty. being a pioneer in any
field is always a sign of unwillingness to succumb to what currently passes
for "normalcy". given this, what point is there in ranting and raving with
those silly "he's a basket case" labels? it can but unite those who _are_
weird derelict disciples. it can also only nuture any latent or present
paranoia: it is a matter of fact that people _are_ out to get RMS, right?
I think "irrational fear of RMS" should be a recognized phobia.
#<Erik 3023632684>
Robert I. Eachus
> Fair enough, but let's look at this issue in a little calmer
> manner. First, if you want a system with a central library, where
> there is no connection between file names and unit names, this is
> easily achievable with a simple set of shell scripts. Jean Pierre
> Rosen has for instance written such a system as a set of simple
> REXX scripts for OS/2. Of course if you adopt this approach then
> you get all the problems (maybe Jay thinks they are advantages in
> his view) of having to follow a specific order of compilation.
> It would also be quite easy to optionally have a mechanism of
> using a centralized file which did file name translations. Indeed
> this was part of the original design.
> The advantage is that you break the need for a connection between
> the names. The disavdnatgae is that you now have a centralized
> data structure, which existing configuration management systems
> don't know about, and which has to handle common access from
> parallel compilations. Also, if this file is updated by
> compilation, you also have introduced an order of compilation
> requirement.
I think, Robert, that you have indicated a third solution which
may be the preferred one. Don't lose the current mode of operation,
but provide an additional mode where you use a library file which
contains a file to unit mapping BUT NO OTHER INFORMATION. In this
mode you want to be able to say "ada *.spec.a -lib MY_LIB" or
whatever. Translated that should mean "if adding all the files with
names of the form *.spec.a from this directory into the Ada library
MY_LIB produces a consistant library do so. Otherwise provide error
messages and do nothing. This would be a huge help in building large
systems, eliminate (actually replace) the .ali files and not take much
implementation work at all. You just have another way (table-lookup)
for converting between unit names and file names, and code to update
(write) the library after a successful compilation.
The chief advantage of this on large projects is that versioning
is much easier: each version corresponds to a different library file.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Chris Morgan
[SNIP]
Hello,
I seem to remember this thread starting off with praise for the GNU
manifesto and leading to discussions of GNU software and a suggestion of a
Nobel prize nomination for RMS. Now I pick up the thread again to find
it's been dragged down to personal attacks. Erik you're dealing with
someone with a major chip on their shoulder, how do you remain calm?
All that stuff about RMS as a student, RMS in 1982 is totally
irrelevant. GNU project is a success, I and many other people use their
software every day. GCC gave GNAT a headstart without a doubt. Emacs is a
powerful multi-function editor/development environment if that's what you
want (some people prefer pretty but limited editors (textedit) or minimal
Unix editors (vi)). These are all facts which influence me in my view
(which I repeat) that the GNU manifesto is rather beautiful. When I read
about the activities of Microsoft which appears to me to be attempting the
biggest vendor lock-in in history, I start to feel paranoid myself...
Anyway, having very briefly corresponded with the great man himself, I
would like to report his message that the best profit margin is obtained
by the FSF from CD-ROMS, so although buying manuals helps, buying the
CD-ROMS helps even more.
Daniel Finster
we use "better" tools, not "good" tools. at the very least, we
focus on the better sides, not on the worst possible aspects.
otherwise, going nuts fast is inevitable.
That may be true for you; I use -good- tools, like Symbolics Genera.
I choose to avoid tools that are anything less than the best.
I wonder what's wrong with whoever wrote this.
I wonder what's wrong with the cretins that want to give him a nobel
prize.
I've seen a lot of people express the most intense hatred for RMS,
with an accompanying deep interest in vilifying those who work on
GNU projects or with him.
I said it in my original post and I'll say it again: RMS -used to be-
(before 1980 or so) an -extremely brilliant person-, who made a lot of
important contributions to the design of tools I use every day. I do
not vilify or despise the people who write GNU software. GNU software
and GNU.AI.MIT.EDU machines have been very valuable to me at times
that I've been forced to wade through the slime of eunuchs. I don't
even really -hate- RMS; I just think he has gone totally off into
lossage, and I really get sick of people thinking he's some kind of
god, or genius, or messiah, or whatever.
I'm not opposed to the concepts of free flow of information, and
sharing programs with others. I -AM- opposed to the particular
communist overtones of RMS' philosophy, expressed in the GNU
Manifesto.
does, of course, mean that those who attack him on the basis of
irrelevant feelings or issues should be countered simply because
they do not present the whole truth, only the part of it that they
self-servingly want to be perceived as the whole truth in order to
be relieved of the duty to present actual arguments.
The same is true of those that are seriously enthralled by the guy:
they do not present the whole truth, only the part of it that they
self-servingly want to be perceived as the whole truth. They do not
present actual arguments, reverting instead to "RMS is such a cool
stud, and he provides all this nifty software for free, so how dare
you possibly say anything bad about him?"
It goes both ways, sir. But, in the spirit of fairness, I am trying
to present a more on-track viewpoint. You have to realize that I'm
not slamming the guy.
I think he needs to be dumped in the cold-load stream with a bar of
soap. Leave him there for a few hours to clean up, cut his frigging
jesus beard and hippie hair off, and lock him out of the AI Lab for a
few months or so to let people disinfect the building.
Then maybe they can let him back in, after they have replaced his
eunuchs workstation with a SHOWER.
Bjørn Remseth
.... And a nice day to You too, Sir.
--
(Rmz)
Bj\o rn Remseth !Institutt for Informatikk !Net: r...@ifi.uio.no
Phone:+47 22855802!Universitetet i Oslo, Norway !ICBM: N595625E104337
Tim Pierce
Daniel Finster <DF at SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote:
>I'm not opposed to the concepts of free flow of information, and
>sharing programs with others. I -AM- opposed to the particular
>communist overtones of RMS' philosophy, expressed in the GNU
>Manifesto.
I bet you didn't know that RMS possesses a piece of paper with the
names of forty-seven card-carrying atheist programmers written on
it.
>I think he needs to be dumped in the cold-load stream with a bar of
>soap. Leave him there for a few hours to clean up, cut his frigging
>jesus beard and hippie hair off, and lock him out of the AI Lab for a
>few months or so to let people disinfect the building.
Yup. I bet you didn't know that.
--
By sending unsolicited commercially-oriented e-mail to this address, the
sender agrees to pay a $100 flat fee to the recipient for proofreading
services.
Chuck Fry
to do than slam or defend RMS.
Followups have been set appropriately.
-- Chuck
--
Chuck Fry Work: chu...@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov Play: chu...@rahul.net
QuickMail SUCKS! It's slow, verbose, and non-standard.
I alone am responsible for the contents of this post.
Keep NASA and Caelum Research out of this.
Just Tara
Daniel Finster <DF at SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> writes:
> From: Erik Naggum <ERIK at NAGGUM.NO>
>
> we use "better" tools, not "good" tools. at the very least, we
> focus on the better sides, not on the worst possible aspects.
> otherwise, going nuts fast is inevitable.
>
>That may be true for you; I use -good- tools, like Symbolics Genera.
>I choose to avoid tools that are anything less than the best.
>
(deletia, deletia, dementia)
>I'm not opposed to the concepts of free flow of information, and
>sharing programs with others. I -AM- opposed to the particular
>communist overtones of RMS' philosophy, expressed in the GNU
>Manifesto.
(more)
>It goes both ways, sir. But, in the spirit of fairness, I am trying
>to present a more on-track viewpoint. You have to realize that I'm
>not slamming the guy.
Sir, you printed a letter detailing RMS's "phobias," including him
"being afraid to go out of his office." Funny, he seems fearless enough to go
to confrences, scifi cons, and resturants. What's up with that? No mention of
*why* you think the GNU Manifesto was "communist," just an all-out slam on the
guy.
>I think he needs to be dumped in the cold-load stream with a bar of
>soap. Leave him there for a few hours to clean up, cut his frigging
>jesus beard and hippie hair off, and lock him out of the AI Lab for a
>few months or so to let people disinfect the building.
Oh gawd, not *long hair*. F*** you sir, and I mean it in the nicest way
possible.
sigh,
just me.
Erik Naggum
| That may be true for you; I use -good- tools, like Symbolics Genera.
| I choose to avoid tools that are anything less than the best.
that's good for you. however, you again miss the point. the resources
available to any one person are limited, so most people go for the _better_
of the choices available with those resources, instead of the best choice
in a minor area to forfeit the rest. few can afford to refuse to work with
tools and under conditions that they consider inferior. I do, and this
limits my options, as I'm sure Symbolics Genera limits yours (e.g., I rent
a small apartment instead of owning a condo or house like most of my
classmates do these days, I don't have a car, and I neither smoke nor
drink, and so don't need to make more than about half of what passes for
"normal living standards", much to the dismay of the IRS (equivalent), and
thus can work almost solely on projects I consider "worth doing"). some
will find such limits too tight for their comfort, and opt for a wider set
of choices, albeit of less quality.
I think you need to realize that yours is not the only valid choice (of
what constutues "good") in this situation. I think that peace consists of
universal agreement on what are the _wrong_ choices and respect for those
that choose among those that are _not_ wrong. anything better than that is
very hard to obtain, perhaps impossible, in a society of any significant
number of people.
| I wonder what's wrong with the cretins that want to give him a nobel
| prize.
and why did they have to be _cretins_? I think I missed that argument.
| The same is true of those that are seriously enthralled by the guy:
| they do not present the whole truth, only the part of it that they
| self-servingly want to be perceived as the whole truth. They do not
| present actual arguments, reverting instead to "RMS is such a cool
| stud, and he provides all this nifty software for free, so how dare
| you possibly say anything bad about him?"
how many people of this kind do you actually know, Daniel? you attribute
to people opinions and motives they simply do not hold. this is far worse
than missing an occasional shower in my mind.
I _could_ interpret your previous comment as saying that you wonder what's
wrong only with those cretins that happen to join the crowd of brilliant
people that want to give RMS a Nobel prize, but that is not very likely.
the same applies to regarding the above statement as being a depiction of a
small group of lunatics who just happen to be "lunatics for RMS" -- you're
tarring a community of excellent software authors with a mighty broad
brush, and this is so incredibly unfair and unjust that I wonder how you
can live yourself. are you really prepared to face all the people you have
vilified randomly and repeat your statements to them individually?
| But, in the spirit of fairness, I am trying to present a more on-track
| viewpoint. You have to realize that I'm not slamming the guy.
are the following comments of yours "more on-track" and "not slamming"?
| I think he needs to be dumped in the cold-load stream with a bar of
| soap. Leave him there for a few hours to clean up, cut his frigging
| jesus beard and hippie hair off, and lock him out of the AI Lab for a
| few months or so to let people disinfect the building.
|
| Then maybe they can let him back in, after they have replaced his
| eunuchs workstation with a SHOWER.
I'm glad to see that the most important, most "on-track", issue with RMS is
his personal hygiene. that would be somewhat like someone having read my
works on SGML over the last five years and come and visit me and exclaim
"there are _cat_hairs_ everywhere, your whole place smells cat food, your
clothes are full of tiny holes, and your hands have scars from playing with
the furry devils; how can we trust what you have written about SGML?"
I take it that you see the obvious flaw in this "line of reasoning".
I think we have converged on maximal divergence in this thread, Daniel.
there really isn't much more to say. I also don't think you can make the
Nobel committee deliver the Nobel prize in coupons redeemable only at
beauty salons for hackers.
#<Erik 3024513763>
Tim Pierce
Daniel Finster <DF at SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote:
>In reality, I really don't care about RMS.
I.e. you are trolling.
>I hope that those of you out there with a sense of humor got some
>laughs out of all this. I certainly had a lot of fun writing my
>posts.
You're welcome.
P.S. Fix your fucking newsreader already, cretin.
Daniel Finster
I think the entire idea of giving RMS (or -ANY- programmer) a Nobel
Prize is the most completely asinine suggestion I have ever seen on
this newsgroup. Much worse even than the Lisp->Perl translator
suggestion.
In other words, it totally annoys me. This being Usenet, the obvious
thing to do is flame-bait until my opposition decides that I'm as
stupid as I've decided that they are.
In reality, I really don't care about RMS. I don't ever think about
him, and he has no place in my world. Much as it may surprise you, I
don't typically go around just badmouthing him to random strangers
(this being a special case). I don't hate him (though I don't really
like him either; maybe a `neutral' feeling?)
I hope that those of you out there with a sense of humor got some
laughs out of all this. I certainly had a lot of fun writing my
posts.
are the following comments of yours "more on-track" and "not slamming"?
Of course not. Thats what makes it so funny.
Jagadeesh Venugopal
>Daniel Finster (DFatSDF.LONESTAR.ORG) wrote:
>
>I support giving RMS the Nobel, or whatever the highest award is for the
>kind of contributions he has made. To coordinate and contribute to the
>cornucopia of FREE software, of such importance, from GNU is worthy of
>our highest honors.
That is a bit too far. The Nobel prize is presumably for people who
have made great contributions to humanity. However RMS definitely does
deserve a high honor in the Computer World. Go no further than Linux
to see how his vision of free software has produced what many people
regard as possibly the best OS that was ever written for the IBM PC.
--Jag
--
/\/\ |Jagadeesh K. Venugopal, jv...@ctp.com |All opinions expressed here |
/ /_.\|Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc. |are my personal opinions only |
\ /./|304 Vassar St. Cambridge, MA 02139 |and not those of my employer. |
\/\/ |Voice Mail: (617) 374-2028. +______________________________+
Ricardo Nassif
<snip>
DF> In reality, I really don't care about RMS. I don't ever think
DF> about him, and he has no place in my world. Much as it may
DF> surprise you, I don't typically go around just badmouthing him
DF> to random strangers (this being a special case). I don't hate
DF> him (though I don't really like him either; maybe a `neutral'
DF> feeling?)
DF> I hope that those of you out there with a sense of humor got
DF> some laughs out of all this. I certainly had a lot of fun
DF> writing my posts.
<snip>
Hummm... The above two paragraphs are somewhat contradictory. Here is
my guesses, based on your previous posts: 1) You've fallen deeply in
LOVE with Mr. Stallman; 2) You're a sick fuck; 3) Both.
-rn
--
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Ricardo Nassif ||||
| There is grandeur in |||||||||||||||||||||||| r...@bluesky.net ||||
| this view of life. |||||||||||||||||||||||| r...@moe.shore.net ||||
| --C. Darwin, 1859 |||||||||||||||||||||||| Fax: 16173544953 ||||
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David Monniaux
> There's no need to presume. <URL:http://www.nobel.ki.se/cgi-bin/
> uncgi/nobel?to=17;;&lng=0&bkp=4&ctr=1&picb=0&gfx=1> excerpts and
> translates Nobel's will:
>
> ... annually distributed in the form of prizes
> to those who, during the preceding year, shall
> have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.
> The said interest shall be divided into five
> equal parts, which shall be apportioned as fol-
> lows: one part to the person who shall have made
> the most important discovery or invention within
> the field of physics; one part to the person who
> shall have made the most important chemical
> discovery or improvement; one part to the person
> who shall have made the most important discovery
> within the domain of physiology or medicine; one
> part to the person who shall have produced in the
> field of literature the most outstanding work of
> an idealistic tendency; and one part to the per-
> son who shall have done the most or the best work
> for fraternity between nations, for the abolition
> or reduction of standing armies and for the hold-
> ing and promotion of peace congresses.
Then why was a Nobel prize of economics created?
Doesn't that mean that the executors of the will have some powers to
change the system according to the evolution of our society?
If economics qualifies, then why not computer science?
> 'Doesn't seem to me that RMS qualifies. Why was this in dispute?
Well, that's another question.
--
David Monniaux, normalien, maths/informatique, Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon
(mathematics and computer science student)
e-mail: dmon...@ens-lyon.fr http://www.ens-lyon.fr/~dmonniau
Jeff Dege
: In article <48cfdg$n...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>, cla...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Cameron Laird) writes:
:
: > There's no need to presume. <URL:http://www.nobel.ki.se/cgi-bin/
: > uncgi/nobel?to=17;;&lng=0&bkp=4&ctr=1&picb=0&gfx=1> excerpts and
: > translates Nobel's will:
:
: Then why was a Nobel prize of economics created?
: Doesn't that mean that the executors of the will have some powers to
: change the system according to the evolution of our society?
: If economics qualifies, then why not computer science?
Because computer science, as a field, doesn't really have a grasp
on the fundamental problems that face it, and is all too aware of that
fact. (i.e., the ``Software Crisis'' that has been facing us down every
day for the last twenty years.) Economics, on the other hand, doesn't
have a grasp on the fundamental problems that face it, and don't even
realize it.
--
"[I]n fact, I didn't know that cats _could_ grin."
"They all can," said the Duchess; "and most of 'em do."
"I don't know of any that do," Alice said very politely, feeling quite
pleased to have gotten into a conversation.
"You don't know much," said the Duchess; "and that's a fact."
Gareth Rees
> The Memorial Prize in Economics was instituted in 1969, and is funded
> by the central bank of Sweden, not by the Nobel estate. A similar new
> prize could be instituted if someone had enough money.
Although there are no Nobel prizes in mathematics and computer science,
the Fields Medal and the Turing Award are well-respected (though not
quite as prestigious, nor as lucrative).
--
Gareth Rees
Kent Paul Dolan
> There's no need to presume. <URL:http://www.nobel.ki.se/cgi-bin/
> uncgi/nobel?to=17;;&lng=0&bkp=4&ctr=1&picb=0&gfx=1> excerpts and
> translates Nobel's will:
>
> ... annually distributed in the form of prizes
> to those who, during the preceding year, shall
> have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.
> The said interest shall be divided into five
> equal parts, which shall be apportioned as fol-
> lows: one part to the person who shall have made
> the most important discovery or invention within
> the field of physics; one part to the person who
> shall have made the most important chemical
> discovery or improvement; one part to the person
> who shall have made the most important discovery
> within the domain of physiology or medicine; one
> part to; and one part to the per-
> son who shall have done the most or the best work
> for fraternity between nations, for the abolition
> or reduction of standing armies and for the hold-
> ing and promotion of peace congresses.
>
> 'Doesn't seem to me that RMS qualifies. Why was this in dispute?
Looks to me like his essays on why software source should be a free good
fit _exactly_ into the category "the person who shall have produced in the
field of literature the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency"
[where in fact "work" usually ends up being interpreted as "body of
work"]. Now all that is needed is for the nomination process to begin.
Thank you for the quote.
--
Xanthian. | "..want the consequences of what you want.." |
Kent, the man from xanth. | Neil A. Maxwell, LDS Apostle |
Kent Paul Dolan ------------------------------------------------
xanthian@{well,qualcomm}.com Jobhunting? Check www.qualcomm.com!
John Kodis
>
>| Then why was a Nobel prize of economics created? Doesn't that mean
>| that the executors of the will have some powers to change the system
>| according to the evolution of our society? If economics qualifies,
>| then why not computer science?
>
>the central bank of Sweden, not by the Nobel estate. a similar new prize
>could be instituted if someone had enough money.
I had wondered why there wasn't a Nobel Prize in mathematics (yes, I
was a mathematics major). One of my professors explained that it was
because Dr. Nobel's wife had had an affair with a French mathematician,
whos name I cannot recall. But after all these years, he might have
gotten over it.
So it seems that the best course of action would be to press for a
prize in mathematics. Then, by claiming that computer science is
really just applied mathematics, RMS would become eligable for a
Nobel prize.
Keith Thompson
> I had wondered why there wasn't a Nobel Prize in mathematics (yes, I
> was a mathematics major). One of my professors explained that it was
> because Dr. Nobel's wife had had an affair with a French mathematician,
> whos name I cannot recall. But after all these years, he might have
> gotten over it.
That's apparently an urban legend. According to the sci.math FAQ,
Mr. Nobel was never married. Probably the real reasons are that he
didn't care much for mathematics, and that there was already a well
known Scandinavian prize for mathematicians.
For more information, see
<http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/sci-math-faq/nobel/faq.html>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@thomsoft.com (k...@alsys.com still works)
TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products
10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2718
Because I'm weird enough, I'm sick enough, and doggone it, people fear me!
William D. Gooch
>>[David Monniaux]
>>
>>| Then why was a Nobel prize of economics created?...
This thread has been way off-topic for the comp. lists for quite a while.
Could you guys please take it elsewhere? Thanks.
Cameron Laird
<ko...@daacdev1.stx.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>I had wondered why there wasn't a Nobel Prize in mathematics (yes, I
>was a mathematics major). One of my professors explained that it was
>because Dr. Nobel's wife had had an affair with a French mathematician,
>whos name I cannot recall. But after all these years, he might have
>gotten over it.
.
.
French mathematics has given the world many wonders, but
this, I think, is beyond even it. As A. Lopez-Ortiz lu-
cidly explains in <URL:http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/
hypertext/faq/usenet/sci-math-faq/nobel/faq.html>, this
explanation is simply false.
'Fact, how about an AMS resolution to the effect that
promulgating it amounts to professional misconduct?
There are enough good mathematicians sloshing around
looking for employment that a few draconian dismissals
could only help the discipline.
Also, I know of no doctorate A. Nobel obtained in academe;
did he receive honorary ones?
I've forwarded a courtesy copy of this to Mr. Kodis, and
narrowed follow-ups.
--
Cameron Laird http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
cla...@NeoSoft.com +1 713 623 8000 #227
+1 713 996 8546 FAX
Daniel Reish
Daniel Finster <DF at SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> wrote:
>I think the entire idea of giving RMS (or -ANY- programmer) a Nobel
>Prize is the most completely asinine suggestion I have ever seen on
>this newsgroup. Much worse even than the Lisp->Perl translator
>suggestion.
Does it bother you that Stallman is vivid?
>In other words, it totally annoys me. This being Usenet, the obvious
>thing to do is flame-bait until my opposition decides that I'm as
>stupid as I've decided that they are.
>
>In reality, I really don't care about RMS. I don't ever think about
>him, and he has no place in my world. Much as it may surprise you, I
>don't typically go around just badmouthing him to random strangers
>(this being a special case). I don't hate him (though I don't really
>like him either; maybe a `neutral' feeling?)
I believe you are afraid of him.
[...]
[Yes, it's from Emacs' Doctor mode.]
--
And I will CONTINUE this message - next week!
--
Dan
Erik Naggum
| It's technically not a Nobel Prize.
true.
| Only the five subjects specified in the will are. Sort of like, "And
| the Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to .. ; and finally, the Foo
| Nobel Institution awards its prize in Economics to ..." (Clearly I
| don't know the name of the organization.)
I wish more people would look things up in readily available reference
works before posting. this has also been covered before. (you're forgiven
for not reading all of this thread, though. :)
the World Almanac and Book of Facts 1995, lists the Nobel Prize Winners and
starts the section like this:
Afred B. Nobel (1833-96), inventor of dynamite, bequeathed $9,000,000,
the interest to be distributed yearly to those who had most benefited
humankind in physics, chemistry, medicine-physiology, literature, and
peace. Prizes in these 5 areas were first awarded in 1901. The first
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science was awarded in 1969, funded by
the central bank of Sweden.
#<Erik 3025813155>
--
"if you know what you want and you don't go out and do it yourself,
you're basically a loser, you know." -- Björk.
Kevin S. Ho
So it seems that the best course of action would be to press for a
prize in mathematics. Then, by claiming that computer science is
really just applied mathematics, RMS would become eligable for a
Nobel prize.
and with sufficient effort in proof, everything is applied
mathematics.
physics is applied mathematics
chemistry is applied physics is applied mathematics
biology is applied chemistry is applied physics is applied mathematics
ksh
Ingemar Hulthage
I don't know how this issue came to be discussed on this bboard, but
anyway. As it was reported in the Swedish media, when the Economics
price was announced (I lived in Sweden at the time), Alfred Nobel's
will left open the possibility for others to contribute to the fund,
that he started, as long as the Nobel prices were awarded in his name
only. When the Swedish national reserve bank had a major anniversary
(300 years I think) they decided to commit themselves to match the
award money given in the original categories, for a price in economics
to be given "in the memory of Alfred Nobel". Therefore the Economics
price is a 'real Nobel price' in the sense that it's awarded by the
Nobel Committee operating under Alfred Nobels will, but the money
doesn't come from the return on the Nobel fund, but is a yearly
contribution from the Swedish national reserve bank.
Ingemar Hulthage
Andy Grosso
Bill Richter <ric...@banach.math.purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>I'm glad to hear this. It's clear that the "Foo Nobel Prize" in
>Economics is a complete sham, they always award it to a Universe of
>Chicago economist for his work propping up the propaganda bullwarks of
>Monopoly Capitalism, 2 prizes ago it went to someone who misused
>Statistics to "prove" that Slavery was an efficient economic practice.
>
While I am utterly thrilled to see people
debating the merits of an intellectual
enterprise in a coherent and rational manner
(note the careful use of supporting details
in the above), might I suggest that it migrate to
some more appropriate place (surely there are
better forums than comp.lang.lisp).
Cheers,
Andy
Bill Richter
>It's technically not a Nobel Prize. Only the five subjects specified in
>the will are. Sort of like, "And the Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded
>to .. ; and finally, the Foo Nobel Institution awards its prize in
>Economics to ..." (Clearly I don't know the name of the organization.)
I'm glad to hear this. It's clear that the "Foo Nobel Prize" in
Robert I. Eachus
> Then why was a Nobel prize of economics created?
Because a bank put up the money. Technically the Economic prize is
different from the "real" Nobel prizes.
> Doesn't that mean that the executors of the will have some powers to
> change the system according to the evolution of our society?
> If economics qualifies, then why not computer science?
Put up the money, see what happens.
--
Robert I. Eachus
with Standard_Disclaimer;
use Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...
Bill Richter
> [...] the facts are not with him. [...] I'll just point out that
> Robert Fogel [...] does not and did not advocate slavery. This was
> covered quite thoroughly in sci.econ (and the *New York Times* [...]
Of course not, he only defended it economically.
> 'Twould be interesting, of course, for Mr. Richter to illustrate
> Dr. Fogel's misuses with real evidence from the latter's
> publications or presentations.
There was a lot of criticism about his methods, might not have made
the Times. From Howard Zinn's ``People's History of the US,'' p 168:
Fogel [...] looks at whippings in 1840--42 on the Barrow plantation
in LA with 200 slaves: ``The records show that over the course of 2
yr a total of 160 whippings were administered, an avg of 0.7
whippings per hand per yr. About 1/2 the hands were not whipped at
all during the period.'' One could also say, ``Half of the slaves
were whipped.'' That has a different ring. The figure (0.7) shows
that whippings was infrequent for any individual. But looked at
another way, once every 4 or 5 days, some slave was whipped.
Yeah, when I think of the political conformity I see in Univs, when
there are no whippings! (Hmm, must be a typo, sounds like .4 to me!)
>I've narrowed follow-ups, as usual.
It's mostly GNU afficionados that are interested in this thread, I've
cut down the Newsgroups list.
Erik Naggum
| Who wants "less work?" I don't - I like my work most of the time, and
| whether or not the peripheral matters like project management are
| non-productive is a matter of opinion. I think my clients don't see it
| as non-productive, or they wouldn't demand it and pay for it.
I think you misunderstood that. "less work" does not mean less fun or less
valuable goods produced, it means less labor spent producing it. "work" is
not an inherent value -- it's what you get out of it that matters. nor is
"work" a synonym for "employment". if you can accomplish the same goals in
much less time, you get more time for other goals. instead of doing the
same old chores billions of times over (counting the industry as a whole),
we could reach _new_ goals, solve _unsolved_ problems, move _forward_.
| Altruism aside, the primary problem with the business culture is *not*
| that things aren't free, it's that the individuals who produce them
| generally cannot retain ownership of their creations.
the question here is over what, precisely, constitutes "creation". if I
write a function for Emacs that does something that wasn't done before, it
is certainly a "creation", but is Emacs with my function a "derived work",
or it is a wholly new thing, or what? in any case, my function is not
worth anything without Emacs around it. you may find that the same
argument is used to defend taxation on other productive activities in a
community where the infrastructure is not paid for, where companies use the
fact that the citizenry can read as a prerequisite for their advertising,
etc. the difference with free software is that you are not _required_ to
pay any taxes.
it also appears to me that you confuse ownership and control.
| The GNU stuff does nothing to address this - it merely says that if I
| create something based on GNU, my product is still co-opted and doesn't
| belong to me.
actually reading the GNU General Public License would be a good idea.
| The fact that the manifesto claims that such results wil be free for
| other people to use (never mind that this claim is naive and
| unenforceable)
again, actually reading the GNU Manifesto would be a good idea.
| simply means that there is no owner, and offers the creator no more
| right to the results of his creation than a corporate employer does
the creator remains the owner. the rights of the creator remain intact.
please understand that you are free to distribute your own creations under
the GNU Public License. if and when you distribute it under the GPL, you
have obviously decided to do that by yourself, so it cannot possibly be in
violation of the creator's rights. furthermore, the whole idea with the
GNU Manifesto is to change the currency of exchange from money demanded to
goodwill granted. as has been proved again and again, there is no exchange
rate between the two.
| The GNU Manifesto's approach is the moral equivalent of a potter
| or artist receiving public funding to support his work, on the con-
| dition that everything he produces goes immediately into the public
| domain, and is free for the taking.
you would really like that to be the case, wouldn't you? it's much easier
to argue and shoot down straw men than real men, right? in other words:
you're bringing to this discussion not the GNU Manifesto but your very own
creative interpretation of it, and you argue against your interpretation,
not the Manifesto itself.
| Thus most users of software (myself included) would prefer to pay a
| reasonable price for it and receive an accompanying warranty and
| organized support for the product, than to get something for "free" and
| be completely on their own when they try to use it.
the two are not even related. you have not even read the GNU Manifest well
enough to understand that "free" is not an issue of price, nor to observe
that selling support is _explicitly_ allowed, even encouraged. there's a
file in the Emacs distribution called etc/SUPPORT, listing people who offer
support for GNU Emacs at varying rates. how can you _possibly_ regard this
as "be completely on their own when they try to use it". moreover, you're
obviously a USENET user, but still you appear to have ignored the many
support newsgroups for free software? I find that more than odd. I think
it's an intentional ommission on your part because it flies in the face of
your argument.
GNU is about creating a community of people helping each other. we give
things to each other, and we demand that anyone who requests our help or
uses our software _not_ take it away and sell it or try to control it, but
otherwise, they are free to use it any way they want. if creative work is
done in this framework (which is entirely voluntary -- nobody demands that
you create anything, and if you want to make money off of it by controlling
the source code, just don't use GNU software, and you're not any worse off
than if you didn't buy some software), we would certainly like you to pay
us back, but not in money. your money is worthless, we want the only hard
currency that exists between programmers: source code. we want people to
read source code, like authors want their works to be read.
please try again with "free" as in "freedom", not in "gratis".
| You get what you pay for. How and when you pay is the question.
now, _this_ is very true. the only problem is that non-monetary payment is
so much harder to count than the proverbial beans. what you pay for the
privilege of easily countable resources is often miniscule compared to what
you pay by lacking the source code to fix problems, even if you had to pay
someone to fix it for you, for the Lord knows that Bill Gates is not going
to come to your assistance. his company doesn't even recognize that they
produce buggy software. now, _that_ is a price I don't want to pay.
so far, you have confused less work with less employment, ownership with
control, free software with lack of support, and freedom with a free lunch.
that's an amazing array of confusions when discussing such a complicated
topic as this. _please_ do your homework. nothing is more boring and less
fruitful than discussing something with someone who doesn't even care to
study the facts of the matter.
I'm tempted to say that opinions are free when well-researched arguments is
the currency of exchange on USENET.
#<Erik 3026155515>
--
"We have built a lot of security directly into Java to make it virus-proof.
And people's concerns about security on the Net tend to be based on age. You
talk to people in their twenties and they are much less concerned about it than
older generations. Pretty soon it won't worry them at all." -- Scott McNealy
William D. Gooch
and focussing on philosophy issues. This is an area where we
might actually have a meaningful discussion.
In article <490v0s$5...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> ric...@banach.math.purdue.edu
(Bill Richter) writes:
>Slavery isn't efficient from the Slaves's point of view! Back to RMS,
>is software hoarding a "defensible economic policy," considering the
>cost of lawyers, marketing & stifled programmers?
Since when is selling something you've created for profit
considered "hoarding?" And, BTW, I'm not "stifled," and
when I have been it wasn't because what I produced wasn't
freely available to the general public.
> Yes, a lotta money
>can be made under our system, described in the GNU Manifesto as
> Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of
> runners in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got
> does not seem to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For
> every ten yards you run, you can fire one shot").
This is an extremely weak analogy. Software development
isn't a race, it's a craft (or art if you like), and there's no
prize waiting at the end if you get yours done first, unless
you can proceed to market and sell your product. There's
also no fight going on as a rule, although people of course
can come up with things to fight about if they want to.
Software development seems to me more akin to making
and selling pottery. If you create something really good, you
can make a mold for it and make and sell copies. Or you can
sell unique pieces to single buyers and ask higher prices.
This time-honored tradition makes considerable sense, and
it has worked well for centuries as a result.
>TNCs (with GATT & NAFTA backing) are interested in whether our freedom
>enhances their profits. Fogel says maybe not, profits can be high
>under slavery, and he got a prize. But for the rest of us, RMS writes
> [...] much nonproductive activity is required to accompany
> productive activity. [...] Free software [is needed] in order for
> technical gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.
Who wants "less work?" I don't - I like my work most of the time,
and whether or not the peripheral matters like project management
are non-productive is a matter of opinion. I think my clients don't
see it as non-productive, or they wouldn't demand it and pay for it.
Altruism aside, the primary problem with the business culture is
*not* that things aren't free, it's that the individuals who produce
them generally cannot retain ownership of their creations. The
GNU stuff does nothing to address this - it merely says that if I
create something based on GNU, my product is still co-opted and
doesn't belong to me. The fact that the manifesto claims that such
results wil be free for other people to use (never mind that this claim
is naive and unenforceable) simply means that there is no owner,
and offers the creator no more right to the results of his creation
than a corporate employer does (aside from the right to personally
use it, which may have some nominal value).
The GNU Manifesto's approach is the moral equivalent of a potter
or artist receiving public funding to support his work, on the con-
dition that everything he produces goes immediately into the public
domain, and is free for the taking. The main difference here is that
irregardless of whether some software is freely available, there's
always a cost for using it, and the cost of using it generally far
outweighs the up-front cost of purchasing the software itself. Thus
most users of software (myself included) would prefer to pay a
reasonable price for it and receive an accompanying warranty and
organized support for the product, than to get something for "free"
and be completely on their own when they try to use it.
You get what you pay for. How and when you pay is the question.
Bill Richter
>>Of course not, he [Fogel] only defended it economically.
> At least some people seem not to have grasped the distinction
> between efficiency and morality, to the point where calling
> something efficient is interpreted as "defending it economically".
Slavery isn't efficient from the Slaves's point of view! Back to RMS,
is software hoarding a "defensible economic policy," considering the
cost of lawyers, marketing & stifled programmers? Yes, a lotta money
can be made under our system, described in the GNU Manifesto as
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of
runners in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got
does not seem to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For
every ten yards you run, you can fire one shot").
TNCs (with GATT & NAFTA backing) are interested in whether our freedom
Chris Morgan
Gooch) wrote:
> Who wants "less work?" I don't - I like my work most of the time,
> and whether or not the peripheral matters like project management
> are non-productive is a matter of opinion. I think my clients don't
> see it as non-productive, or they wouldn't demand it and pay for it.
If you read the manifesto, it is clear that RMS does not want to destroy
the ability of people wih skills to make money. I think he is making a
more subtle point that since the marginal cost of leting another person
use some pre-existing software is nearly nill, then society is devoting
too much effort if it is collectively producing several competing
solutions to the same old problems.
Certainly he expects changes to be necessary to how we make a living if
the GNU ideal is to realised (and it is an ideal), but he would, IMHO,
simply suggest that you could sell the main core of your skills for a
similar amount of money using and adapting free software rather than
originating your own. Would that be so bad, or could it be that people
like writing their own software rather than cooperating with other people?
That would explain Microsoft's attitude...
Chris
-------------------------------------
-- Chris Morgan, BAeSEMA Limited
-- chris....@baesema.co.uk
-------------------------------------
-- Team Ada
-------------------------------------
William D. Gooch
>.... if you can accomplish the same goals in
>much less time, you get more time for other goals. instead of doing the
>same old chores billions of times over (counting the industry as a whole),
>we could reach _new_ goals, solve _unsolved_ problems, move _forward_.
Sure, but I do not find myself so constrained by the price of
software. Like the GNU Manifesto, you hyperbolate beyond
all rationality. Carrying something to its logical conclusion
is a worthwhile exercise, as long as you don't pretend that
what you arrive at is reality, nor anything more than a point
at which you can learn something before you return to reality.
>it also appears to me that you confuse ownership and control.
How so? I can hardly respond if you don't say what you mean.
>actually reading the GNU General Public License would be a good idea.
Have done, and again just now. Care to explain how I am wrong,
rather than just making vague innuendos?
>again, actually reading the GNU Manifesto would be a good idea.
Have done, and did again just now. See above.
>the creator remains the owner. the rights of the creator remain intact.
I trust that you actually believe that, so I'll ask you again to explain.
Please specifically elaborate on "intact" rights to the control of software
*licensing* under the GPL.
[ I said: ]
>| The GNU Manifesto's approach is the moral equivalent of a potter
>| or artist receiving public funding to support his work, on the con-
>| dition that everything he produces goes immediately into the public
>| domain, and is free for the taking.
>you would really like that to be the case, wouldn't you?
Why do you think that? I have nothing against free software. I even
use it sometimes. But free software that takes away my rights when
I build on it isn't really free. If somehow I've misunderstood the GPL,
then please share your understanding of it. Briefly if possible.
> it's much easier to argue and shoot down straw men than real men, right?
Again, perhaps you can offer some information, rather than simply
attempting to undermine via innuendo. (Much easier than arguing
with substance on your side, right?)
>.... you're
>obviously a USENET user, but still you appear to have ignored the many
>support newsgroups for free software? I find that more than odd. I think
>it's an intentional ommission on your part because it flies in the face of
>your argument.
No, it doesn't. The kind of support one gets from newsgroups,
in my experience, is spotty and risk-laden at best. In some
pursuits, taking advice from a newsgroup can very easily get
you dead. This may not be the case with software in general,
but I think the parallel is illuminating.
What I find odd is that your response is so belligerent, as
opposed to supplying relevant information.
>| You get what you pay for. How and when you pay is the question.
>now, _this_ is very true. the only problem is that non-monetary payment is
>so much harder to count than the proverbial beans. what you pay for the
>privilege of easily countable resources is often miniscule compared to what
>you pay by lacking the source code to fix problems, even if you had to pay
>someone to fix it for you, for the Lord knows that Bill Gates is not going
>to come to your assistance.
Oh great, now we're back to discussing personalities again.
How did Bill Gates get in here? The billionaire we all love
to hate is hardly relevant in this (I now hesitantly call it a)
discussion. I know, I know - next you're going to tell me how
relevant he is, because of the billions he's earned selling
software - a perfect example of the root of all evil. Baloney.
>so far, you have confused less work with less employment, ownership with
>control, free software with lack of support, and freedom with a free lunch.
Nope, nope, and nope. Please try again, with less feeling
and more information. If you don't have anything of substance
to offer the next time, then don't expect me to respond. You've
so radically misconstrued my first post on this thread, I doubt
that you'll be able answer the second one clearly either. But
I'm giving it a shot, because I'd really like to find out whether
there's anything more than a lot of emotion in there.
M'Isr
(setf *worms* 1)
(defmacro worm ()
(let ((fname (GENSYM)))
`(Progn
(defun ,fname ()
(incf *worms)
(worm)
(if (= *worms* 4)
(format t *func_msg*)))
(if (= *worms* 5)
nil
(eval ,fname)))))
(defun $start_worm (msg)
(setf *func_msg* msg)
(worm))
($start_worm "~&Robert Morrison used C.")
Any one care to comment on this little pice of
code or worms please mail me!
--
Khos AI
VIRX
Scott Fahlman
Oh, no! Just when we thought this utterly worthless thread was dying
out, some clown mutates it. Can we PLEASE get this crap off
comp.lang.lisp and onto alt.religion.rms or comp.slavery.advocacy or
wherever it properly belongs?
-- Scott
===========================================================================
Scott E. Fahlman Internet: se...@cs.cmu.edu
Principal Research Scientist Phone: 412 268-2575
School of Computer Science Fax: 412 268-5576
Carnegie Mellon University Latitude: 40:26:46 N
5000 Forbes Avenue Longitude: 79:56:55 W
Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Mood: :-)
===========================================================================
Martin Bergendahl
but a few clarifications are needed here. First, the prize is awarded
by the 'State Bank', a Swedish version of the U.S. Federal Reserve.
>I'm glad to hear this. It's clear that the "Foo Nobel Prize" in
>Economics is a complete sham, they always award it to a Universe of
>Chicago economist for his work propping up the propaganda bullwarks of
>Monopoly Capitalism, 2 prizes ago it went to someone who misused
>Statistics to "prove" that Slavery was an efficient economic practice.
There has been quite a lot of misunderstanding about that prize. What
in fact he _did_ without a doubt prove was that purely economically
speaking the slave system in U.S.A. created more than it consumed,
that is to say it had a growing GNP. This is controversial, mainly
because in current theory only a free market economy can produce
a growing GNP. That can now be questioned. So the economist did well
deserve his prize. (As a side note, the real reason socialism lost
its glory was because it could not provide a growing GNP.)
< Martin Bergendahl >
Ian J. Hennell
Feel free to look into LDRA Testbed, it analyses C, C++ and other major
languages.
Contact details below:
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian J. Hennell | Voice: +44 (0)151 708 8505
LDRA Ltd. |
131 Mount Pleasant, | Fax: +44 (0)151 709 2027
Liverpool, |
United Kingdom, L3 5TF. | E-Mail: i...@ldra.com
Markku Stenborg
ric...@banach.math.purdue.edu writes:
[snip]
>Slavery isn't efficient from the Slaves's point of view!
It could very well be ex ante efficient. In contracting problems, it
removes limited liability constraints.
[snip]
Markku Stenborg mar...@utu.fi
Take my advice, I have no use for it