Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aurs01!throop
From: throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: the scientist and the engineer
Message-ID: <59483@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jan 91 20:01:54 GMT
References: <1991Jan26.210023.28534@cbnewsh.att.com> <1991Jan27.234614.2327@cbnewsc.att.com> <1991Jan28.125444.71@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> <6518@hplabsz.HP.COM>
Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP
Lines: 32

> sartin@hplabsz.HP.COM (Rob Sartin)
>> djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com 
>>No. Custom metallurgy would mean designing a new programming language 
>>from scratch and that is rare.
> Not as rare as one might hope.  [...]
> My observaton is that software folks often get more carried away with
> the pure technology rather than focusing on solving the problem.

I'm of the opinion that it isn't as *common* as one might hope.
( Where "it" is the coining of custom languages/notations. )

I'm a great believer in "tiny languages" a-la Bentley, eg: consider the
origins of "pic".  The productivity improvement of jootsing (a-la
Hofstadter) to a semantically "denser" notation can be immense.

Mind you, I don't doubt for a minute that this technique can be abused,
I just don't think it is *used* in many of the places it "ought" to be.

An approximately true story: I remember a conversation between
a developer and a manager.  The manager well knew the developer's
tendency to solve the more general problem and invent "tiny languages".
The conversation went something like this:

        mgr: How long will it take you to [solve problem so-and-so]?
        dev: Oh... [thoughtful pause]... about six weeks.
        mgr: That long?  Remember, I don't want you to be wasting time
             solving somebody else's problem or inventing fanciful
             preprocessors!
        dev: Ah! [second, slightly longer thoughtful pause]... 
             then, about ten weeks.

Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop