Home
Feedback
FAQ
Getting Started
Discussions
Site operation discussions
Recent Posts
(new topic)
Departments
Courses
Research Papers
Design Docs
Quotations
Genealogical Diagrams
Archives
From Fritz Kunzes article:
Use a standardized language. ANSI Common Lisp is a dirty language. But it is standardized. In business, it's very important to be standardized. In a world of standardized language, there are many vendors and implementations, and they are compliant to the specification and interoperative. Mr. Hisao Kuroda, the Head of Knowledge Engineering Devision at MSI, took over and explained us why he would not use those new scripting languages for his business. It's because they are not languages but only implementations that lack written specifications. He wants his application software to survive no matter what happens to the implementations. It's not a matter of preference but a matter of survival. So, write a specification.
Mr. Hisao Kuroda seems to let aside an important fact - I guess intentionally. This new fashion scripting languages are all open source. Therefore he can grab the code and compile it and port it till his cadaver turns rotten. The liberal belief in the sake of competing vendors acknowledging a standard forced by a committee authority is comparatively trustfull as trusted computing.
By the way the practise I know about standardization committees ( in telecommunication industry ) is a matter which is as political as technical and what is standardized is a mixture of reference implementations, conventions and engineering fantasies. Nevertheless the companies obtain enough manpower and skilled technical lawyers to build successfull applications upon their own crap.
Mr. Hisao Kuroda seems to let aside an important fact - I guess intentionally. This new fashion scripting languages are all open source. Therefore he can grab the code and compile it and port it till his cadaver turns rotten.
He's also very optimistic:
ANSI Common Lisp is a dirty language. But it is standardized. In business, it's very important to be standardized. In a world of standardized language, there are many vendors and implementations, and they are compliant to the specification and interoperative.
Well, in an ideal world of standardized languages this may indeed be the case, but in the real world of standardized languages, compliance isn't a given and interoperability has to be worked into the system (even if your following the standard!). I remember back in University when students would write a program with one C++ compiler, and the professor/grader couldn't get the program to even compile with their C++ compiler. Mostly this is the result of students using non standard features, but it is possible that students are using features that are standard but haven't been implemented in the professor/grader's compiler. Now this may not be as big of a problem with some languages (Lisp or C) because their standards have been around a lot longer, but it is still an issue that one has to worry about.
You are absolutetly correct on standardization commities: standardization is as much politics (if not more) as technology.
Also, my personal problem with specifications is that they require a lawyer to interpret them. I prefer formal semantics (which, of course, require a mathematician to interpret them, but at least semantics is much more concise). Compare a definition of pi calculus with a specification of JavaTM Business Integration. I know JBI has a much broader scope, but still - couldn't the spec include a formal semantics at least for its core functionality (exchange of messages, and conversion of them)? That would greatly improve the learning curve. Or am I reading LtU too much to believe that it is much easier to grasp a couple of pages of formal semantics as opposed to a hundred of pages of prose peppered with pieces of Java source?
"I prefer formal semantics (which, of course, require a mathematician to interpret them, but at least semantics is much more concise)."
Using formal in the CS sense: the initials of the mathematician you need to interpret them may well be PC.
At work I've been trying to document something (non-language). The more I try to stay away from examples, the harder it gets to write and the shorter the text becomes. Examples are always a valueable addition, but if a text throws a lot of examples at me, nowadays I think the author might just be lazy.
The snake in the logo was a fairly easy clue. Now it's official (more here).
See also Rewriting Reddit.
Recent comments
23 weeks 1 hour ago
23 weeks 5 hours ago
23 weeks 5 hours ago
45 weeks 1 day ago
49 weeks 3 days ago
51 weeks 13 hours ago
51 weeks 13 hours ago
1 year 1 week ago
1 year 6 weeks ago
1 year 6 weeks ago