Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

cs.utexas.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#11

Post by michaelneale »

yters wrote: post #9
tx wrote: post #2

I have always admired Dijkstra and feel sorry for myself for arriving to Austin too late. And this quote is something I wish I could have had a discussion with the man about: "I feel that the effort to use machines to try to mimic human reasoning is both foolish and dangerous. It is foolish because if you look at human reasoning as is, it is pretty lousy; even the most trained mathematicians are amateur thinkers. Ins…

Seems that was the original rationale behind computers, as intelligence augmentors.

Maybe digital computers, yes, but before that a "computer" was more of a job description.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#13

Post by gruseom »

factor wrote: post #3

This one is timeless: "I have said it before in public and I am perfectly willing to repeat it that someone introduced to computers via Basic is in all probability mentally mutilated beyond redemption. That is no joke. A major branch of the Siberian Academy of Arts and sciences is aimed at keeping Basic out of Siberian high schools."

Of course it's bullshit. A generation of hackers started with Basic on TRS-80s and Apple IIs and Commodore 64s. Several generations, actually.

Given this comment of Dijkstra's and his (hilarious) swipe at PL/I in the article, here's a rather satisfying counterexample:

Up till then I had programmed mostly in Basic and PL/1.

http://wiki.alu.org/Paul_Graham's_Road_to_Lisp

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#14

Post by gruseom »

tx wrote: post #10
corentin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but it's bullshit. I taught myself programming with BASIC when I was a kid, my first programs were horrible, unstructured things with GOTOs everywhere and redundant code and yet I was able to teach myself Scheme as well a few years later. In fact, I find that I understand the point behind useful programming language constructs (and, yes, their beauty) after spending some time suffering due to the lack of th…

You have a lot to prove. A giant as big as Dijkstra was, he publicly said that "corentin has mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration" and you're out to prove him wrong. Good luck. :-) Makes me feel more lucky for starting with x86 assembly although I am not sure it's any better than BASIC. God bless us!

I don't think Dijkstra's absolutisms have aged particularly well. On some things he turned out completely right, on other things staggeringly wrong. In this article, look at his endorsement of the idea that coding should be left to the final 25% of a project's schedule. It's all very hit and miss, yet he delivers every claim in the same godlike tone of infallibility. The idea that maybe everything hasn't been figured out about software development - that in fact, maybe not very much has been - seems alien to him.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#15

Post by noonespecial »

tx wrote: post #10
corentin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but it's bullshit. I taught myself programming with BASIC when I was a kid, my first programs were horrible, unstructured things with GOTOs everywhere and redundant code and yet I was able to teach myself Scheme as well a few years later. In fact, I find that I understand the point behind useful programming language constructs (and, yes, their beauty) after spending some time suffering due to the lack of th…

You have a lot to prove. A giant as big as Dijkstra was, he publicly said that "corentin has mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration" and you're out to prove him wrong. Good luck. :-) Makes me feel more lucky for starting with x86 assembly although I am not sure it's any better than BASIC. God bless us!

It was just a conjecture of his that history didn't bear out. Thinking in basic is bad. Great leaps in programming and the availablity of knowlege about programming (other people's good code) made it easy to stop thinking in basic if one was motivated.

Great men once thought that the earth was flat and there were only 4 elements. It is trivial today for even a nitwit to prove otherwise. This does not mean that these great men are now less great or that nitwits are now smarter.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#16

Post by michaelneale »

"Q You are speaking of the leading edge of research of computer languages..... A Yes, What it is again in danger of being supported to death because one of the hopes of functional programming is that in the execution of programs written in a functional style it will be easier to exploit a lot of concurrency."

Interesting - well I guess that statement is over 20 years old, but probably still holds true. It also explains his other opinions.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#18

Post by tx »

gruseom wrote: post #14
tx wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a lot to prove. A giant as big as Dijkstra was, he publicly said that "corentin has mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration" and you're out to prove him wrong. Good luck. :-) Makes me feel more lucky for starting with x86 assembly although I am not sure it's any better than BASIC. God bless us!

I don't think Dijkstra's absolutisms have aged particularly well. On some things he turned out completely right, on other things staggeringly wrong. In this article, look at his endorsement of the idea that coding should be left to the final 25% of a project's schedule. It's all very hit and miss, yet he delivers every claim in the same godlike tone of infallibility. The idea that maybe everything hasn't been figured…

Dijkstra could not predict that in 2007 to-do lists and message boards like Facebook will become multi-billion dollar businesses. Sorry to poop on your beliefs, but "agile" BS can be applied only on CRUD projects that have nothing in common with Computer Science.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#19

Post by michaelneale »

tx wrote: post #17
michaelneale wrote: post #12

Is Computer science paralyzed by accepting E. Dijkstra's research and comments as valid?

Did you bother to read the interview?

yes, very much so. Just thought it was funny (it was how I read the headline at first). There was an amusing anecdote about a company not being allowed to start coding until 70% of the project time had elapsed - taken out of context (and there is a LOT of context) that is somewhat contrary to current practices.

Re: E. Dijkstra: Computer science is paralyzed by accepting this moron as their typical customer.

#20

Post by tx »

michaelneale wrote: post #19
tx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you bother to read the interview?

yes, very much so. Just thought it was funny (it was how I read the headline at first). There was an amusing anecdote about a company not being allowed to start coding until 70% of the project time had elapsed - taken out of context (and there is a LOT of context) that is somewhat contrary to current practices.

It is not. Depends on what do you refer to by "current practices". Dumb CRUD projects surely can be coded on the fly using so-called "agile" approach without much thinking. "Steer left or right as required" works very well for them.

The thing is, most of online discussions, especially on YC are revolving around web-based CRUD to-do lists or something similar, whose complexity (something Dijkstra was very much concerned about) is close to zero.

Therefore "current pratices" cannot be used as a good example of software engineering in general, since most "engineers" are too busy dreaming of getting rich by implementing a high school programming project over a weekend and selling it to google.

I am fully aware that I do not represent the common "spirit" of this board by stating these views, but there is no way in hell you can do software for F-22's pilot's helmet can be done using "current practices" you're referring to. In fact, the best "current practice" (as some MBAs believe) is to outsource your typical CURD job to India. Hard to argue with that.

Post reply on HN