Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!lgc.com!cl
From: cl@lgc.com (Cameron Laird)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: the scientist and the engineer
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.145459.24755@lgc.com>
Date: 30 Jan 91 14:54:59 GMT
References: <1991Jan28.125444.71@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> <6518@hplabsz.HP.COM> <59483@aurs01.UUCP>
Sender: news@lgc.com
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corp., Houston, Tx
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: forest.lgc.com

In article <59483@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
			.
			.
			.
>> 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.
			.
			.
			.
Seconded.  I'm not well-enough read to know that Bentley and Hof-
stadter had labels for these notions, but I recognize quite well
what you're saying.  Constraints can enable, I claim; the disci-
pline of defining a "tiny language" generally promotes quicker
understanding of what the salient design issues are.
--

Cameron Laird		USA 713-579-4613
cl@lgc.com		USA 713-996-8546