Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!cdshaw From: cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: He's not the only one at it again! Message-ID: <1990Jul23.231717.2766@cs.UAlberta.CA> Date: 23 Jul 90 23:17:17 GMT References: <1990Jul21.004616.649@Stardent.COM> <388@e2big.mko.dec.com> <391@e2big.mko.dec.com> Sender: news@cs.UAlberta.CA (News Administrator) Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Lines: 93 In article gillett@ceomax.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>In article gillett@ceomax.dec.com (Christopher Gillett) writes: >>> Aha! Lets presume for a moment that you are truly a computer scientist, >>> and that you buy into all the stuff that computer "science" teaches. >> >>Which computer "science"? The real one, or the straw man Bruce Karsh and >>you keep bringing up. > >That's exactly my point! IMHO, there's really no such thing as >"Computer Science". What is your point, that you give straw man arguments, or that you have this well-known opinion? >Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, are all real sciences. Bull. Mathematic is not a "science". It is rigorous philosophy. Mathematics intends to show things which are true regardless of what observations can be made in the real world. In Kantian terms, Mathematics has essence, but no existence. >There is a fundamental underpinning for everything, and everything within >these fields procedes from a well understood, provable set of facts. Also total nonsense. Name the alleged "provable facts" of biology. By "provable" I take it to mean that mathematical rigor must be applied. The same is true of all the "hard sciences". There are NO PROVABLE FACTS. There are only observations that conform reasonably to theory. Let me give you a clear-cut example. Before 1890, a Physicist would tell you that Newton's Laws were the Laws of Nature at any level, including the atomic. He no doubt would claim to be able to "prove it". By 1920, atomic and subatomic observations gave rise to a whole new atomic theory, and a whole new set of "provable facts". So what does this mean? Physics is not science? No, it means that the job of the scientist is to create and "prove" theories from observations. "Proof" is much weaker in the scientific sense, because a new observation could knock it all down. That is, there's always this implicit disclaimer that says "this could all be wrong". >Some elements of computer science certainly exhibit these traits, but for the >most part it all seems to spring forth from a mostly subjective, arguable >basis. I think that we should stop holding out our discipline as a science >and call it what it really is...engineering. The basic problem with this point is that you have failed to name what is this "mostly subjective, arguable basis". Sure, program indenting is arguable and subjective. So what? Program indenting is computer practice, just as lab technique in any of the "hard sciences" is physics of biological practice. And yes, a binary tree is an arbitrary notion, but this doesn't mean that you can't methematically prove things about binary trees. >Borland is but one example of a company whose success is based upon >their ability to deliver "performance products". For the environment and >audience they've defined as market targets, their products are excellent. Sure, but the problem is that these products are not what they claim to be. Borland's products are not "Compilers", they are miniature special-purpose compiler-based operating systems. In some cases, they are not compilers for the languages that they claim. In other words, I'm complaining about Borland lying to me about what their products are. None of these "performance products" would exist on the IBM PC if the damn machine itself wasn't so grossly limited by its OS. >Griping about Turbo Whatever not running in some foreign environment (like >Double DOS) is akin to griping about how hard it is to get your date to ride >in your cool new garbage truck. You need the right tool for the right job. Again more nonsense. One of the basic problems with the Borland products is that they bypass the operating system. Its strength (speed) is also its weakness (unportability). Turbo xxx is in fact a step backwards in terms of computer history, to the bad old days when you had to re-write every program for each new machine. It was a pretty good observation made by whoever in the 50's that you could write programs with a consistent programmer interface, but which ran on different machines. Hence FORTRAN. The benefits of portability are clear, and there is no need to restate them. However, some people beleive that portability is not important, because they will never have to port their program to a new machine type. However, it's a tiny minority of people out there who don't get bitten by unportability at some point. >>Peter da Silva. `-_-' > >Christopher Gillett gillett@ceomax.dec.com -- Chris Shaw University of Alberta cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.ca Now with new, minty Internet flavour! CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !