When does a bug turn into a design feature? Or, what is a "bug"?

[robic0]

Not to be outdone by Xah's rants, I introduce this perilous symantec
paradox.
I come from an engineering background with little help from English classes.
I found out early that English and logic don't mix:
i = i + 1 is surely not a Engineering concept! The biggest fopa in engineering
is a "conceptual error". Its akin to touching "the third rail" in a subway transit system.
I think that before programming accumen there were "only" engineers. In fact it was invented
by engineers. But i = i + 1 to an engineer, is a "fopa", an indication of an idiot.
How does that resolve when the monicker "software 'engineer'" is bestowed upon graduates of
computer science. There is no such thing as computer "science"! Computers aren't a science!
Electronic "test tube" gating is a "science", jk-flip flop, what ever you want to call it...
transistors, semi-conductors. The ability of an object ot hold a state open under voltage and
release it when removed. A binary machine. That is science. Programming languages emulate a model
of gating science. But its not a science. How insulting! Boolean logic? Gating?
Formal logic? Yes, formal logic would seem to be the underlying foundation for all modern software.
Because, we think in language and "formal logic" is the "science" of thinking, ergo language it is
and will always control provisions of programming. Which is NOT a formal "science", and never will
be! That is a paradox.

To engineers, f=ma, and e=mc**2 (means the same thing, with a unit conversion) cannot be eclipsed!
As long as the binary (electronics) cannot either, there is nothing that will ever change the state
of a "old" binary based technology. In order for binary to be supplanted, the binary has to be removed!
A new model, one that has a newer complex state as a minimul of the electronic foundary, has to be
devised. One NOT based on binary. A basis of electronics based on a new model of abstraction has to
be devised. More susinctly, an abstraction "unit" has to be the new binary/electronic model.
Multiple state electronic gating, not simple binary. Not anything related to binary at all.
Up/down, left/right, back/forward has just got to leave human thinking as a base unit of measurement!

Think about it.

 

[A. Sinan Unur]

robic0 wrote in

symantec paradox.

ITYM 'semantic'.

I come from an engineering background with little help from English
classes.

While the latter is obvious, I would consider the first statement an insult
to engineers everywhere.

fopa

ITYM 'faux pas' (see http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+faux+pas)

Think about it.

You will have to try a few bazillion more times to get to the point where
you can begin to imagine that you may one day be able to write as well as
Xah Lee.

Plonking you on this computer as well. Thanks for the entertainment.

Sinan

 

[robic0]

robic0 wrote in

ITYM 'semantic'.


While the latter is obvious, I would consider the first statement an insult
to engineers everywhere.


ITYM 'faux pas' (see http://www.google.com/search?q=define:+faux+pas)


You will have to try a few bazillion more times to get to the point where
you can begin to imagine that you may one day be able to write as well as
Xah Lee.

Plonking you on this computer as well. Thanks for the entertainment.

Sinan

Thanks Sinan!
I don't read Xah. I'm very dyslexic so I avoid reading entirely.
My last grade school was the 8th grade. 15 years later got a BSME
in 2 years. I think my inherint power is logic. Something "rings" in my
ear when its not right, always did since I was born.
I've suggested a problem and a possible solution. You should take
or smoke some halucinigens and re-read the post. Maybe your, er ahh,
"mind" will be able to think "outside the box"...

 

[Mark Clements]

I've suggested a problem and a possible solution. You should take
or smoke some halucinigens and re-read the post. Maybe your, er ahh,
"mind" will be able to think "outside the box"...

No: from what I can follow of your tortuous (and by this I mean
"rubbish", not "too complex for me to understand") you have posted a set
of sentences without a cohesive argument, then you have concluded that
binary systems are not adequate and that something else is required.

I'm going to regret this, but what is your point?

To engineers, f=ma, and e=mc**2 (means the same thing, with a unit conversion) cannot be eclipsed!

I'm going to regret this, but what are you on about?

What does any of this have to do with Perl?

Mark

 

[Daniel Cutter]

I'm going to regret this, but what are you on about?

What does any of this have to do with Perl?

I think he's on about that the symbol '=' in mathematics has a
completely different meaning to the symbol '=' in Perl.

It's all based on the history of computing. The symbol '=' was
introduced for transfering the result of an equation because it was
short. Remember that computers at one time were slow. Ever since
computer language designers have seen this as a flaw and therefore tried
to remove the ambiguity by useing '=' and '=='. Or as in Pascal ':=' and
'='.

But even you have taught me something today. I didn't know that the
French term 'faux pas' is also used in English. I've only ever seen it
in German.

Daniel Cutter

print chr--$g+ord for'KWVX%GUW]RP^-^Tb]2[UXa\j#'=~m$.$g;

 

[Tad McClellan]

I don't read Xah.

How then, do you know that you are not to be outdone by Xah's rant
as you claimed in the OP?

You can't evaluate if his is better than yours if you have
never read his. Where's that "logic" you possess in such
copious quantitites?

 

[John W. Kennedy]

I think he's on about that the symbol '=' in mathematics has a
completely different meaning to the symbol '=' in Perl.

It's all based on the history of computing. The symbol '=' was
introduced for transfering the result of an equation because it was
short. Remember that computers at one time were slow. Ever since
computer language designers have seen this as a flaw and therefore tried
to remove the ambiguity by useing '=' and '=='. Or as in Pascal ':=' and
'='.

Actually, ":=" dates back to ALGOL 58, at the dawn of programming
languages as we know them.

But even you have taught me something today. I didn't know that the
French term 'faux pas' is also used in English. I've only ever seen it
in German.

Yes, it's quite common in English.

--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

 

[Samwyse]

Actually, ":=" dates back to ALGOL 58, at the dawn of programming
languages as we know them.

Actually, I always thought that it would be cool if '=' were illegal and
programers were forced to type either ':=' or '=='. That would make it
a lot harder to have assignments masquerading as comparisons and vice versa.