1384685
story
Motor writes:
"The Register has an interview with Monte Davidoff, one of the men responsible (along with Gates and Allen) for the original Microsoft BASIC. So what does he think of Linux... CPRM... Python... RMS and GNU software? Great stuff."
Re:thanks for the gorrilas (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
It is interesting that he recognizes GNU (Score:4)
----
"Most of you steal your software... What hobbyist can put years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?"----An Open Letter to Hobbyists, Bill Gates, Micro-soft, 1976
"GNU... is the name for the complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free... Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air."----The GNU Manifesto, Richard Stallman, Free Software Foundation, 1985
Microsoft Windows vs. GNU/Linux, 2000
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:2)
As one example virtually every MTS component you write implements Objectcontrol methods Activate, Deactivate and CanBePooled
We also usually write our external component interfaces using IDL and then implementing them in VB code.
It's pretty standard. I honestly use inheritance all the time in VB.
Exactly! (Score:2)
10 print "stuff"
20 gosub 50
30 goto 10
50 print "more stuff"
60 return
You could do some simple functions in MSBASIC, it supported a function definition which was really more of an inline macro.
Other than that, yeah it pretty much sucked for trying to do anything structured.
That all changed towards the mid 80's. There were a lot of more advanced BASIC compilers available for the Amiga, ST, PC, etc. that supported functions, subroutines, etc. without line numbers.
The photo - The tales (Score:2)
"That was taken after my second summer, working on the second BASIC for Microsoft. The story there is that Bob Greenberg (center right) had won a prize from a photo lab, which was a free photo shoot." So the first corporate publicity shot came about completely by chance.
The stories of these people can be found here [chinadaily.net] for example.
Re:I worked with Monte in a previous life. (Score:2)
It's kinda neat to see a friend actually show up on Slashdot!
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:Nice concept, what have you in mind re: executi (Score:2)
It's not a blank slate. There's quite a bit of structure built-in, and the entire thing is primed for learning and pattern recognition.
--
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
>Gates in the software industry.
Or another rockefeller in the oil industry. Or Henry Ford in the automobile industry. And (switching from money to fame), it'd be a touch hard to get another Linus Torvalds in the operating system space.
Hands up everybody who's suprised it's easier to get a 50% share of an industry when it's really really tiny, and then hang on for the ride as it grows, than try to de-commoditize established one.
Rob
"Damnit..." (Score:1)
------------------
IE using posers on Slashdot (Score:1)
Or they use Opera and leave it in its default "Pretend to be IE5" mode.
I use Opera on both Linux and Windows out of preference, and while I prefer the Windows version at the moment (gesture support rocks, and the scroll works better than Linux) I can see how leaving it with IE support would mess up the stats.
Remember this when reading your logs, webmasters!
Re:Now it's clear! (Score:2)
--
Re:Bill Gates Interview (harbinger, found) (Score:1)
Yes, I especially enjoyed this bit near the top, where Gates is talking about using time-shared equipment back in junior high:
Rented software, anyone?Re:Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too (Score:2)
In fact, they thought there wasn't enough work to go around, so they kicked me off. I said, "Look, if you want me to come back you have to let me be in charge. But this is a dangerous thing, because if you put me in charge this time, I'm going to want to be in charge forever after."
I don't think that desire has diminished one smidgen with time...
The first pirated copy of M$ software? (Score:1)
We went around the country in this big van, big blue van, they had, with these machines starting up user groups and demonstrating things. Actually, before we even shipped BASIC, somebody stole the demo copy out of the van and started copying it around and sending it to different computer clubs.
I wonder if that was the first ever incident of software piracy? ;-)
Re:Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too (Score:1)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:3)
We aren't told that he decided to take the high road with his career and not try to become filthy rich.
He did his job and went on with his life.
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:thanks for the gorrilas (Score:2)
In my mind, having a language, even BASIC, plus example source code in the OS distribution was a very good thing and I was sad to see it disappear. It wasn't long before I was exclusively Linux.
You can't even script in Windows without third-party tools. That's pretty pathetic.
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:3)
Which is unfortunate, since algorithms are one of the fundamental concepts in computing. I'd love to hear how you intend to replace the whole of computer science with an algorithm-free alternative.
And it's all because of the algorithm.
And physics. If we could get rid of physics it would be a lot easier to keep planes in the air. Actually, the common element seems to be time -- physics supplies it and algorithms consume it. I suggest we stop using time immediately.
Well consider this: The reliability of software is inversely proportional to its complexity while the reliability of the human brain improves as it gets more complex.
When was the last time you found a worm with Alzheimer's, or schizophrenia, Tourette Syndrome? I have yet to a bug so depressed as to leap beneath a shoe to to be squished. (You could -- and I might -- argue that those don't count a defects, since, e.g., schizophrenia could very well be the correct state for some people's brains, given their genetics composition, but I could just as easily say that Windows should crash given the crappy code that goes into it.)
The most obvious difference between software and the brain is that the former uses sequential algorithms whereas the latter is based on parallel streams of signals.
Which are provably equivalent to sequential and parallel algorithms, barring a gross violation of the laws of physics. In fact, if you accept ANNs as reasonable abstractions of real neural networks, I have a book on the topic right here.
A signal-based system is more reliable because it makes it possible to have strict control over the timing of events. By contrast, one can never be sure when an algorithm will be done, and this creates all sorts of timing problems.
I'm sure this would come as a surprise to hard realtime systems and neurons alike.
It is no secret that hardware is inherently parallel and driven by signals.
Try directly implementing an algorithm in your choice of fundamental fields. Note the reasons why this doesn't work.
I just remembered who you are, and grew very tired, so I'm going to watch TV. Have fun changing the world.
Re:William betrayed and murdered Bill. (Score:2)
[1] get bored easily.
[2] dont care about the business aspect.
[3] dont like to support the same product for n years after they write it.
[4] detest marketing deadlines and budgets.
[5] prefer working in small groups or alone
[6] move on to more interesting things. raking in money doing nothing is really boring. trust me on this one.
Re:Bring back GWBasic! (Score:1)
Re:Halloween Documents (Score:1)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
Why do we always assume that rich people are unhappy? Is it a way of expressing our envy, and since we aren't that rich, well, at least _I_ am happy, because he surely can't be! But then, you did mention you had the chance, and turned it down.
Maybe rich people are happy making money, just in the pure pursuit of it. Having it doesn't do it, because these guys just keep making more, it seems. Maybe I'm not rich because making money doesn't make me happy, so I don't pursue it with gusto. And I can't imagine lots of money making me happy. I've seen lots of miserable poor folk, too. I can tell you one thing: I sure do like being comfortable a whole lot more than being poor, which I've been.
--
Re:Interview (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
Why didn't you just take over the family company, and promise you'd change it within 5 years, sort of like Al Pacino in the Godfather's? Oh wait...
--
Now it's clear! (Score:5)
So, they began doubling memory requirements starting with their second ever software release, and they've continued until this very day!!
--
William betrayed and murdered Bill. (Score:1)
Reminded me of Obi-Wan talking about Anikin with that far-away look in his eye.
"He wasn't always a hulking metal monster, you know?"
Anyway, why is it the clued in one who dissapears from the scene?
-Peter
Re:Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too (Score:2)
--
Re:William betrayed and murdered Bill. (Score:1)
Dunno. Ask Woz.
Re:Is he a billionaire? (off topic) (Score:2)
> unhappy?
On the contrary. I think that money can make people happy. However it seems it cannot make them satisfied.
(I have heard this too: money cannot buy love but
it can rent a lot of sex.)
Matyas
Re: Happiness (Score:1)
Happiness is not getting what you want, Happiness is wanting what you get.
Re: Happiness (Score:1)
The secret to happiness is not getting what you want, it's wanting what you get.
much better.
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
poor billy. he has billions and billions of dollars, but he's an unhappy boy.
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
thanks for the gorrilas (Score:1)
Thanks.
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
Innovation! (Score:2)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:2)
A much more likely explanation for the phenomenon would probably be that stupid people are attracted towards Basic, while clever people soon realizes they need to learn something else, and doesn't remain in the Basic camp for very long.
Anyway, the Basic Djikstra talked about has almost nothing in common with e.g. Visual Basic that would, well, probably not make Djikstra happy, but at least not make him physically ill (oh wait, that was another language).
Edsger Djikstra is a person that deserves respect. It is just too bad that this stupid quote is what people remember of him!
Re:Interview (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
Bill Gates Endorses "Open Source" - sorta (Score:2)
Have lots of people read the code so that you don't end up with one person who is kind of hiding the fact that they can't solve a problem. Design speed in from the beginning. A lot of things that have helped us, even as the project teams have become larger, and the company has become a lot larger than it was. It is not some methodology where there is a lot of funny documentation. Source code itself is where you should put all your thoughts, not in any other thing. So, our source codes, all though there are a few exceptions, tend to be very well commented in a very structured way.
- Bill Gates, Interview with David Allison of the Smithsonian.
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:1)
In reality, you will discover the opposite: software that employs a functional approach is usually not only extremely reliable, but can reach levels of complexity that staggers most proponents of the Pascal school of thought.
I suspect that you pulled this timing argument out of the same orifice from which Alex Chiu derived his famously stupid "all humans are magnets" nonsense. Algorithms are not concerned with the timing of events, only with the results of the operation. Software can wait around forever for the results, but fails when the results are not what were expected. That is the source of a lot of software reliability and compatibility issues. Timing is an issue when it comes to execution speed, but for most algorithms the time of execution is knowable, and there are algorithmic analysis procedures that software developers go through to improve the speed of their programs; i.e., if algorithm A produces the exact same results as algorithm B but with a tenfold speed increase, we can improve our speed by using algorithm A. (Again, algorithms are concerned with results, NOT timings!)
As for space probes and air traffic control systems, that's what real-time systems are for. The code that runs these real-time applications is usually extremely reliable and coded to run in given time constraints.
What you are describing exists to a small extent in systems like Smalltalk, but overall what you are proposing would introduce the same kinds of problems that led to the development of the all-purpose, stored-program computing machine in the first place, so we're back where we started.
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:1)
Re:Halloween Documents (Score:2)
Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too (Score:5)
Become a better stock trader with PeakTrader [peakprogramming.com]
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:2)
/Brian
Re:GNU/BASIC (Score:1)
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:1)
We need plug-compatible components and message-based communication between objects
When you get right down to it, at least as I see it, computers process instruction after instruction. Now, here's what dict.org's 'Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing' calls an algorithm, in part:
algorithm
A detailed sequence of actions to perform to accomplish some task. Named after an Iranian mathematician, Al-Khawarizmi.
So, even if we use these objects that communicate via message passing, it's just a facade over the real algorithmic execution that's occuring. But then, this isn't meant to be serious. Entertaining though. Exactly how, do you propose we would write software without languages? And message passing, how is that different from function calls? Oh yeah, it's not! Don't worry, you get a cookie...
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
However, lil ol' me(who, incidentally writes many COM components in C++) doesn't program giant component models(as of yet), having only done little 100,000 line web projects. I personally have never needed to use inheritance, and unfortunatly, although you've shown me a good example of what, don't say why.
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:2)
Yes, in 1982 BASIC was pretty crippled, however its current incarnation only lacks inheritance to be a full OO language(this can be worked around from what I understand, however in my 7 years as a programmer I still haven't seen a truly valid reason to use inheritance). Inheritance will be a feature of the next version of VB.
So the next time you decide to put down VB, remember that you are deriding a compiled, object-oriented language. Java can't even claim to be that.
Halloween Documents (Score:5)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
Also, another thing to look at is that money changes people and the orginal ideas seem to get lost. I have witness this many times in the past.
To be completly honest, my family owns the largest wood working shop on the east coast. I had the option to take over the business, I declined. My reasons where that my family is very Cut Throat, very gready, and will do anything to screaw over another family member. This is not a joke, its very serious. Sure, I could have made boat loads of money, but I would have suffered every single day.
I have had many people in the past disagree and say, "Man I would have just done it!". You can't even begin to understand it unless your put in that postion. So, all in all, money isn't everything. Yet, its nice to have.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
You are incorrect. The BASIC which you refer to is the version that was popular in the early eighties. The later versions were far more structured with local and remote functions and subs, libraries and includes. An example of BASIC code which you could run through BC.EXE (Microsoft's BASIC compiler) in probably about 1987 would be like this:
The problem with the development world is that they are stuck on the fixation that the laguage hasn't evolved since BASIC in 1979. These are the same people who complained about using line numbers in QBASIC when they didn't need them at all (in fact the above code will probably work in QBASIC.EXE). Even C wasn't in its current state in a day!
Great (Score:5)
Re:No! Please bring back XENIX! (Score:1)
Re:Bring back GWBasic! (Score:1)
Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:5)
Re:Bill Gates Interview Pretty Good Too (Score:1)
And it was really his insight that because of semi-conductor improvements, things would just keep getting better. I said to him, "Oh, exponential phenomena is pretty rare, pretty dramatic. Are you serious about this? Because this means, in effect, we can think of computing as free." ( he is talking about paul allen)
but the interesting thing is that he makes it sound as though he and paul realized MOORES LAW first. Egomaniac.
Re:Nice concept, what have you in mind re: executi (Score:1)
Uhhhh, no. The best thinking today is that some characteristics are by nature and those can in turn influence along with external environmental factors the majority or characteristics that we call personality and capability.
I've never seen a child spontaneously do calculus. Someone has to teach them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ the real world is much simpler ~~
Refreshing (Score:2)
Re:Interview (and technology / society comentary) (Score:5)
Davidoff touches on this only periferally, but CPRM is another example of a society responding to technology, rather than adapting to it or making efficient use of it.
Please bear with me as I rant for a moment:
It's vary interesting to watch as society (as seen threough legislation that defines that society) scrambles to catch up with technology, where a half century ago, we drempt of what it would be like in the 21st century where we'd have flying cars and other astonishing technologies. I whonder if anyone - as part of the dream - envisioned tire manufacturers joining the enviromental lobby to put together legislation to prevent the introductions of cars that didn't roll along on tires.
The MPAA isn't the only industry association to be staunchly protecting a business model that doesn't apply in a new milenium. Look at how long it has taken for gasoline-electric cars to be introduced. Even today, there are only a few out there. The technology exists, and it works but hasn't been widely adopted. What oil company would be in favor of such a technology?
According to Davidoff: This is yet another eample of the same phenomenon. Most disturbind, is that he's completely correct, the public is simply unaware of many of these issues.
In the 1950s we were dreaming of new technologies, without concern for how sociaty would react. Now, we have - then unimaginable - new technologies (although no flying cars yet) but society is fighting introduction of those technologies. New areas of law are created efery day as new problems are created, adressed, then others created. We need progressive lawmakers with insight into these technologies to make far more informed decisions. This, however is the catch-22. There will not be lawmakers who can make informed decisions with regard to a technology, unless that technology is widely available, such thet they are familiar with it, and yet, if archaic law is what is preventing the technology from proliferating through society, we will have created for ourselves a techno-evolutionary cul-de-sac from which itwill become increasingly difficult to extricate ourselves.
--CTH
--
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
We shall see how sustainable the software licensing model is-- apparently Microsoft must have some doubts about this because of their move towards a service oriented model.
I think that this interview was interesting... I always admire mathematics coders because of the absolute beauty of mathematical computation (I use math functions whenever I can to solve seemingly non-mathematical tasks because I have cfound these solutions to be more efficent and extensible).
I think his comments also about the impact of the GCC are also interesting. I had know it was influential but I was not familar with its impact on the embeded impact.
Re:IE using posers on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:4)
Sure. However, if you want to get into the industry now or in a couple of years, this is an issue. How can you build a stable company in an ever changing industry on non-sustainable business practices?
Where does Microsoft make most of their money? OEM sales and upgrade cycles (both the same, mostly-- people upgrade their machines by buying a new one all too often). As hardware becomes more powerful, the upgrade cycle becomes longer. Can they sustain their profits?
Obviously not-- hence the service oriented model they keep saying they are moving towards.
Get over it. THere will never be another Bill Gates in the software industry. You cannot be like him, nor can anyone else. THe opertunity is over for that kind of success.
I think that proprietary software will always be around but will probably be relegated to niche roles (don't expect an open-source version of OrCAD any time soon).
Also note the emphasis in the interview on RMS's academic background. It doesn't suprise me that an obviously intelligent programmer here is supporting free software.
Also note that the essnece of making a fortune is not "licensing fees" it is "other people's work." This is true regardless of what one sells. So yes, I think that it is possible to make a lot of money in the OSS market, and that oportunity is slowly beginning to surface, but it will be a little whil before anyone does so.
The Future of Computing (Score:2)
I thought this Comment from Bill Gates regarding the future of computing to the DA's question was VERY ACCURATE and ahead of his time. I was impressed!!!
The Future of Computing
DA: You mentioned your vision of where the PC will be on every desk and in every home. You clearly have had a vision about the kinds of products that would come out and yet you said a minute ago, "This is just the beginning." What do you see as lying ahead in terms of further unfolding of the vision that you have held onto so continuously over the last 20 years?
BG: Well, the PC will continue to evolve. In fact, you'll think of it simply as a flat screen that will range from a wallet size device to a notebook, to a desktop, to a wall. And besides the size of the screen, the only other characteristic will be whether it is wired to an optic fiber or operating over a wireless connection. And those computers will be everywhere. You can find other people who have things that are in common. You can post messages. You can watch shows. The flexibility that this will provide is really quite incredible. And already there is the mania in discussing this so called "Information Highway" which is the idea of connecting up these devices not only in business, but in home, and making sure that video feeds work very well across these new networks. So we've only come a small way. We haven't changed the way that markets are organized. We haven't changed the way people educate themselves, or socialize, or express their political opinions, in nearly the way that we will over the next ten years. And so the software is going to have to lead the way and provide the kind of ease of use, security, and richness that those applications demand.
Re:Interview (Score:2)
Write and tell them you don't like CPRM (Score:1)
http://developer.intel.com/software/security/co
Re:Halloween Documents (Score:2)
It is that point which RMS seems to get, and hammer (and hammer, and hammer..) into our thick skulls every time he opens his mouth/text editor.
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:2)
Know what you mean... I'm working as a R&D tester for a company that is a BIG Linux supporter, in an area (Raleigh, NC) where there are TONS of high paying IT jobs. I make less than I could, but I get to work with 4 different Linuxes (and both SCO Unixes), and it's really satisfying.
By the end of summer, I hope to achieve my RHCE and take a purely Liunux position as a network engineer/BOFH for someone.
Re:Nice concept, what have you in mind re: executi (Score:2)
Since you are so knowledgeable on the subject, perhaps you can supply me with the wiring diagram?
I thought not. Your attitude is symptomatic of why no progress is being made in the field. While there are a few tendencies which may be pre-programmed, which act as relatively poor predictors of future behavior, the vast array of data structures which make up our personalities are acquired through life. It's the only place they can come from -- regardless of your religious views on the subject (and IME most believers in social darwinism have a nearly religious fixation on the idea), there is simply no room in the genetic code for those properties to be coded in a non-emergent way.
(P.S. Emergent means they emerge like the features of a fractal; small changes in the code result in large, often crippling, changes in the result, making them non-evolvable.)
Re:Nice concept, what have you in mind re: executi (Score:2)
Nice starting point, actually everyone's starting point because it's the most easily studied via ablation and point-scan type studies.
When you were born as a blank IBM RAM chip, who taught your eyes to differeniate a luminosity function and form egdes?
You get to the gist: I didn't.. I learned those things in the first hours/days after my eyes opened, or (alternately) after the wiring to my cerebral cortex became myelinized enough to permit the learning. How did I learn it? By looking at stuff..
We are not born knowing how to, for example, detect short line segments or connect them into shapes or detect luminosity variations and do derivatives on them. This is the fundamental error of current AI research. How do I (O great swami, I hear you say)) arrive at this startling conclusion?
It's simple, but important. THERE IS NO PLACE IN THE GENETIC CODE FOR THE INFORMATION TO GUIDE SUCH WIRING.
Please go back to CSCI 100, re-read Knuth or whatever, until you grok that last statement, because it is really, really important.
Nice concept, what have you in mind re: execution? (Score:3)
One reason AI research isn't going anywhere is that we are failing to face up to an important truth about how brains develop. Since they program themselves, starting with really very little seed information, most of their observable properties are emergent. The same would be true of any artificial system that really mimics the brain. The reason we don't have good AI isn't that the hardware isn't good enough -- I think it is, at this point -- it's that nobody wants such a system. Imagine educating your self-driving car for six years only to find out it's become a chance-taking rebellious delinquent!
You mention "message-based communication between objects" as if those objects will somehow know how to talk to one another. Clue time: They don't know how to talk to one another until they learn. And they learn through experience. Sometimes their learning is imperfect, and it can be very difficult to recognize the holes in that learning. We don't even know how to reliably program our own children, much less an air traffic control system that will differ significantly from all known types of brain, animal and human.
The newly formed brain is every bit as blank as the newly powered-up dynamic RAM chip -- anybody with an ounce of objectivity can look at the 7 Gb genome vs. the 10 ex 14 connectivity of the cerebral cortex and figure that out. Do you really want to go into the cyber day-care business, teaching your machine to speak english and habla the espanol and so forth the same way human babies learn it? Of course not. Since that's what it takes to do it the way you mention, it won't be done that way.
At least, not by most people (sly grin).
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:1)
No. They all suck, especially COM and OLE. They suck because they are all based on the algorithm. One of the problems with algorithmic components is that, even is they are tested and proven to work reliably in one environment, there is no guarantee that they'll work the same way in another environement. Why? because that is the bane of algorithmic systems: event timing varies from one system to another. By contrast all hardware chips retain their temporal signatures wherever they are used.
Re:All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:1)
Parallelism can easily be simulated in software. I do it all the time. For example, his is how neural networks work. The trick is to hide the sequential nature of the processor by using two lists one for input signals and one for output. Once you get to that level, you're got a signal-based system. Ideally, the only algorithm that should exist in a processor-based system is the single function that runs the message-passing operating system and processes the primitive objects. In the future when we have fullly reconfigurable memory, we'll get rid of the function altogether.
All Programming Languages Suck! (Score:2)
The algorithmic approach to software construction is the primary reason why software sucks. Software sucks because it is unreliable and takes too long to develop. The invention (again by Lady Ada) of the subroutine, although a great contribution when it was introduced to digital computers in the last century, did not prevent the current software crisis. Planes loaded with people are crashing, airports are shut down and Mars probes costing hundreds of millions of dollars are being lost. And it's all because of the algorithm.
Why the algorithm you ask? Well consider this: The reliability of software is inversely proportional to its complexity while the reliability of the human brain improves as it gets more complex. There is an important lesson to be learned from this. The most obvious difference between software and the brain is that the former uses sequential algorithms whereas the latter is based on parallel streams of signals.
A signal-based system is more reliable because it makes it possible to have strict control over the timing of events. By contrast, one can never be sure when an algorithm will be done, and this creates all sorts of timing problems. It is instructive to note that hardware is orders of magnitude more reliable than software. It is no secret that hardware is inherently parallel and driven by signals. I an convinced that a similar approach to software construction can improve reliability by several orders of magnitude.
So there you have it. I call for the elimination of the algorithm as the basis of software construction. I call for a worldwide effort by geeks everywhere to contribute ideas for the establishment of signal-based software construction methods (GPLed, of course). We need plug-compatible components and message-based communication between objects. We need reliable, downloadble components that can snap together at the click of a mouse. No more function calls! No more languages!
It is about time that software is changed from the cottage industry that it is today and moved into the 21st century. Let's face it, Lady Ada and Charles Babbage were true geniuses and we owe them a great deal, but they did not have to write code for interplanetary probes and air traffic control systems.
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
"You're 45 years old. Your father and I can't support you your whole life, you know!"
"But mom... I'm so happy making $15,000 a year doing what I do. Can't you be happy for me?"
Something tells me I wouldn't be bringing presents to your abode.
Dancin Santa
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
Dancin Santa
Re:Is he a billionaire? (Score:1)
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's famous BASIC quote (Score:1)
You like those controls and ActiveX and OLE objects that you can stick to your VB apps? Those REQUIRE inheritance. While it may not be visible to you, someone's using inheritance (and polymorphism and the rest of OO stuff) to bring these controls to you.
Dancin Santa
Is he a billionaire? (Score:5)
Decisions, decisions.
Dancin Santa
I worked with Monte in a previous life. (Score:5)
There were rumors about his past with good ol' Bill, but I never bothered to ask. It's funny, now that I haven't seen him for several years, to see his past highlighted in the article. The stories I heard about his past seemed unlikely for someone like him (i.e. a reasonably normal guy without obvious riches).
Don't get me wrong. Monte is a cool guy. Nice, friendly, smart and all of that. But to imagine him as one of the first 10 or less at MS is weird to say the least. Obviously he never got the riches out of it that the rest of them did. He always drove around in an ancient Honda Civic with faded and peeling paint. He had a relatively isolated position (in charge of development tools) in our relatively obscure company. Don't know much about his personal life, but I think he took Karate lessons. You could always count on him to ask the pointed, annoying question of the speaker at company meetings. It was inevitable, and they would always look for him in the crowd to get the questions out of the way.
Not the mover and shaker one would associate with the other founders of MS. I wonder if he's sorry he didn't stick around long enough to become a billionaire. If you're reading this Monte, "Hey."
Re:Bill Gates Interview (harbinger, found) (Score:2)
Intresting side point (Score:3)
Interview (Score:5)