Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG!davis
From: davis@COMMUNITY-CHEST.MITRE.ORG (dave davis)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Implications of powerful systems
Message-ID: <8904031211.AA12142@chance.mitre.org>
Date: 3 Apr 89 12:11:38 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 34


John Woolverton writes:

> One of the side effects of all these bigger and faster computers
> are that more options and effects are being added, and this is good
> but it also allows less efficient and sloppier code.  Given, that
> all applications don't need to be written in assembly any more,
> but there are quite a few programs that I have looked through,
> that are incredibly sloppy.


There is a common myth in computer science that if one codes it in
assembler it is somehow magically faster, better, and more
professional.  Remember, a lousy design is still lousy in assembler or
in any high-level language.  There are some published studies which
show that the variaton in execution speed between good designs for a
problem and the worst designs for the same problem is a factor of one
to 1500!  My objective is not to flame John, but to point out some
trends.  Industrys desperate need for more software, cheaply, is
pushing higher-level languages and efforts to somehow automate more of
what analysts and programmers do (ex: environments, expert systems,
4GLs).  A more subtle trend is the use of design methodolgies.  These
have the goal of making a system design more understandable, and
doable, rather than the goal of making the code fit on the machine.
So, what we are going to use all those MIPs for is to run our
relational database, data dictionary tools, deisgn aids, configuration
manager, etc.  while compiling, debugging, and integrating.
So, a programmer is going to need about 20MIPs at his desk.  


=================================================================
Dave Davis
MITRE Corp.
McLean, VA