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

Discussion in 'Perl Misc' started by robic0, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. robic0

    robic0 Guest

    Not to be outdone by Xah's rants, I introduce this perilous symantec
    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.
    robic0, Jan 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.

    A. Sinan Unur, Jan 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. robic0

    robic0 Guest

    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"...
    robic0, Jan 22, 2006
  4. 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?

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

    What does any of this have to do with Perl?

    Mark Clements, Jan 22, 2006

  5. 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;
    Daniel Cutter, Jan 22, 2006

  6. 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?
    Tad McClellan, Jan 22, 2006
  7. Actually, ":=" dates back to ALGOL 58, at the dawn of programming
    languages as we know them.
    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"
    John W. Kennedy, Jan 22, 2006
  8. robic0

    Samwyse Guest

    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.
    Samwyse, Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.