Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 13th Jun 2006 12:08 UTC, submitted by Mapou
General Development "There is something fundamentally wrong with the way we create software. Contrary to conventional wisdom, unreliability is not an essential characteristic of complex software programs. In this article, I will propose a silver bullet solution to the software reliability and productivity crisis. The solution will require a radical change in the way we program our computers. I will argue that the main reason that software is so unreliable and so hard to develop has to do with a custom that is as old as the computer: the practice of using the algorithm as the basis of software construction. I will argue further that moving to a signal-based, synchronous software model will not only result in an improvement of several orders of magnitude in productivity, but also in programs that are guaranteed free of defects, regardless of their complexity."
Thread beginning with comment 133051
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Refute it
by j-s-h on Tue 13th Jun 2006 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Refute it"
j-s-h
Member since:
2005-07-08

So lets apply the same techinques to software as to hardware. Software is more flexible than hardware. Therefore, anything you can do for hardware could also be done for software.

Yes, hardware is more expensive than software. And that has absolutely no bearing on his arguments at all.

I disagree on your view of credibility there. I'd say if he wants some credibility, he'd implement the system, and show how it's better than the current paradigm with examples. After all, did Matz, the author of the Ruby language get published in the ACM? What about the author of Perl? I think your position is quite absurd.

In any case, there seems to be no point in arguing with people on this topic, because people seem to be quite close-minded. So I'll let it rest.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Refute it
by rayiner on Tue 13th Jun 2006 19:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Refute it"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

So lets apply the same techinques to software as to hardware. Software is more flexible than hardware. Therefore, anything you can do for hardware could also be done for software.

That doesn't follow. In fact, the inverse is usually true in practice. Things that are more flexible tend to be less amenable to the same sorts of analyses.

Yes, hardware is more expensive than software. And that has absolutely no bearing on his arguments at all.

Sure it does. A larger budget means you can hire more skilled and experienced people to implement a design, you can give them more time to complete the design, and you can afford to pay more people to test the design. That counts for an enormous amount.

After all, did Matz, the author of the Ruby language get published in the ACM? What about the author of Perl? I think your position is quite absurd.

Matz and Wall didn't claim that the theoretical foundations of modern computer science were fundementally flawed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Refute it
by j-s-h on Wed 14th Jun 2006 00:53 in reply to "RE[3]: Refute it"
j-s-h Member since:
2005-07-08

What you say doesn't make sense at all. If something is more flexible, you can use implement a less flexible system on top of it. You are only interested in shooting down this guy's vision for programming and advocating the status quo. Cast not your pearls before swine. Argument with you is pointless.

One can have a much more useful, reliable, system without publishing papers in the ACM. What matters is how good the ideas are, not in which forum they are presented. Hey, you aren't published in the ACM eiher, right? If so you have no credibility to shoot down his ideas, according to your own rules, and you are a hypocrite.

Reply Parent Score: 1