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 133196
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Refute it
by j-s-h on Wed 14th Jun 2006 00:53 UTC 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

RE[5]: Refute it
by rayiner on Wed 14th Jun 2006 01:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Refute it"
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Your original statement was: "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."

These two statements mean different things. The key words are "on" versus "for". "What you can do on a more restrictive system you can do on a more flexible one" is true, while "what you can do for a more restrictive system you can do for a more flexible one" is not generally true. In fact, the opposite is generally true. Solution techniques that work for restricted systems often do not work for more general ones.

Cast not your pearls...

You misspelled "quackery"

What matters is how good the ideas are, not in which forum they are presented.

The goodness of an idea can only be determined by an evaluation of that idea. The ACM is a forum for the evaluation of theories in computer science. Since what we have here is just an idea --- a theory, not an implementation, the ACM is absolutely the appropriate forum for its evaluation.

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.

I'm not claiming that computer science as a field is barking up the wrong tree. The bigger the claim, the more credibility you need. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to credibly claim that rockets move as the result of conservation of momentum. You'd better be a rocket scientist if you're claiming that astrophysics is fundementally flawed!

Reply Parent Score: 2