Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc Subject: Computers and Society Digest, #22 Message-ID: <341@hplabsc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Jun-86 16:01:50 EDT Article-I.D.: hplabsc.341 Posted: Fri Jun 27 16:01:50 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 08:57:36 EDT Reply-To: hplabs!taylor (The Moderator) Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Lines: 235 Approved: taylor@hplabs As for those who can't write but won't use such tools, or worse, who don't know they can't write; who don't know a principle from a principal: phooey on yooey. Here's my extended (tongue firmly in cheek) reply: ARE ONLINE SYSTEMS HELPING TO PROLIFERATE BAD CODING? Before online development systems existed, important programs were usually hand-keypunched and hand-corrected, often in several drafts, before being run. The keypunching of the program represented a finalizing and codifying process which encouraged well thought-out algorithms. Care needed to be taken, since a single error could necessitate re-running the entire job. There is a hidden risk in the new systems, in that they have enabled us to bypass the correction and finalizing phases of coding, often resulting in quick and efficient execution of poorly planned, sloppy, and confusing code. In systems programming, where complex and potentially important algorithms are implemented, clearness of expression is obligatory. I could cite, nevertheless, many examples where bad coding has rendered programs unintelligible and algorithms obscure. Compilers tend to be very quick to correct us on points of syntax, but very slow to correct, or even recognize, inaccuracy or inefficiency of algorithms in our own or others' code. While I do not advocate abandoning the CRT for 029's and ASR 33's, I do encourage readers to take the time to proof and revise any of their programs meant to implement important algorithms. Re-read your code, and have others examine it for efficiency, absence of kludges, and general comprehensibility, before you submit it to any computer. Remember that online compilers are only tools, and that the burden of effective implementation and testing still rests upon those who use them. --Bruce ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 May 86 08:23:18 mdt From: ihnp4!lanl!crs@hplabs.ARPA (Charlie Sorsby) Subject: Word Processors, Electronic Mail & Writing In a recent issue of Computers and Society Digest, the ques- tion "ARE WORD-PROCESSING AND ELECTRONIC MAIL HELPING TO PROLI- FERATE BAD WRITING?" was asked. I believe the answer is yes and no. These, and other, electronic tools make writing easier and so help to proliferate writing, both good and bad. In this sense, at least, the answer is yes. I believe that many slip-shod writers will continue to be slip-shod writers in spite of electronic tools. But, many careful writers will continue to be careful, and may become more so, because of these tools. There are probably border-line cases where a writer will slip from one category to the other as a result of some characteristic of these tools. WORD PROCESSORS: (I include, in this category, text editors such as vi) It seems to me that, rather than proliferating bad writing, these tools encourage good writing by the ease with which corrections and revisions can be made. I know that my writ- ing has been improved by use of a text editor. Using a typewriter, I tend to make corrections of glaring errors but minor errors are often allowed to slip by because of the relative difficulty of making the correction. With a text editor, I correct all errors that I find. My favorite thing to do with a typewriter is to make a mis- take near the end of the page. Unless it is easily corrected with correction fluid or it is a serious error, it *stays*. Revisions are very time consuming when drafts are hand written and final copy is typed. Even if someone else is typing the material, the cost of corrections and revi- sions is considerable. I think there is a resulting ten- dency to edit as little as possible. With a word processor or a text editor, on the other hand, corrections and revisions are much easier. I think editing is, therefore, encouraged, and writing improved, by these tools. Spelling checkers are another tool that improves writing. I have mixed feelings about style analyzers though. I suspect that users may not be critical enough when inter- preting the "suggestions" made by style analyzers. There may be too much of a tendency to thoughtlessly accept these suggestions "because the computer said so." Another possible problem with electronically produced writ- ing is the fact that a typical video display doesn't show a full (typewritten) page of text. I believe that this can cause a lack of coherence in writing produced by electronic means. I discuss this below. ELECTRONIC MAIL: Here, I agree that some gawd-awful stuff passes for writing. I suspect that electronic mail is more analogous to quick, hand-scribbled, notes than to formal mail. I know that I have a tendency to think of it that way. I don't know if better user interfaces would help or not. It may be a psychological problem. One contributing problem is, I think, the limited expanse of the video display. This is especially a problem when reply- ing to electronic mail. It is difficult to reply coherently to something that you can no longer see. I'm sure that those with good memories find this less of a problem than I do. Perhaps the answer is dual-crt terminals :-)/2. Seri- ously, that would be a big help for me. Replying to e-mail is difficult for me because I can't view the original and my reply at the same time. This can also be, albeit less of, a problem with the original document because with typical video displays, one sees less than a full page of text. I would like to see terminals & word processors with the aspect ratio of the display reversed (i. e. portrait mode rather than landscape mode) and with the necessary resolu- tion to display a full page of text. I think that electronic mail is definitely an area where bad writing is proliferating. If electronic mail is considered to be the equivalent of a quick, hand-scribbled, note, the seriousness of the problem is arguable. Those who would use e-mail for more formal purposes, though, would be well advised to make a conscious effort to avoid "scribbling." Charlie Sorsby ...{cmcl2, ihnp4, ..}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 May 86 10:30:25 pdt From: Jim Reid Subject: Re: A Computing and Society news group [I just had to include this... -- Dave] In article <148@comp.lancs.ac.uk> David England writes: >I'd like to vote for a Computing and Society news group (net.csr ?) >as suggested by Dave Taylor , the moderator of the current mailing list. I vote for this too. Maybe it should be uk.csr or eunet.csr? With all the rampant ramboism in most "political" postings from across the Atlantic, I don't know if a csr group would be acceptible on a net-wide basis. Jim [I realize this isn't supposed to be a political discussion group, but it sure is an interesting statement about the differences between America and other countries...] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 May 86 10:30:25 pdt From: Dave Taylor Subject: Broadening this digest a bit... A few propositions for you'all; 1. We're going to have this group gatewayed into a legitimate news group finally - so I've been thinking about a possible change to the format, namely to toss the digest format entirely and have each message simply added to the group. 2. Also, there has been a lot of interest in having the group tie in somehow with the Computing and Social Responsibility groups around the world -- I was thinking of allowing some postings from those groups assuming that they aren't too political (as I'd rather avoid our group falling into the inevitable jingoistic battlefield that all emotional topics like politics would make it). If anyone has any complaints, suggestions, kudos, or (!!) POSTINGS (!!) please let me know. I'd also like to hear from CSR people... -- Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 May 86 10:16:33 edt From: Alex Colvin Subject: computers & writing Comments on Computers and Society "Digest", #21, Effects of computers on writing... >From "Utopia of a Tired Man" collected in "The Book of Sand", Jorge Luis Borges, Norman Thomas di Giovanni, trans. An encounter with a man in the future: "Now you are going to see something you have never seen," he said. He handed me a copy of Thomas More's "Utopia", published in Basel in the year 1518; leaves and pages were missing. Somewhat foolishly, I answered, "It's a printed book. At home I had over two thousand of these, though they were neither as old nor as valuable as this one." I read the title aloud. The man laughed. "No one can read two thousand books. In the four centuries I have lived, I haven't read more than half a dozen. Besides, rereading, not reading is what counts. Printing -- which is now abolished, since it tended to multiply unnecessary texts to the point of dizziness -- was one of man's worst evils." ----------------------------------- To have your thoughts included in this digest, or to join the mailing list, please send electronic mail to Dave Taylor at any of the following addresses: taylor@HPLABS.{CSNET,ARPA -- or -- ..hplabs!taylor This digest is published approximately bi-monthly and does not necessarily express the views of HP nor anyone else other than the individual authors of the messages. *********************************** End of Computers and Society Digest ***********************************