From: jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel)
Subject: Re: HLL's = More Code!
Organization: Molecular Simulations, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:01:56 GMT
X-Posted-From: connection.prospect.com
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

ccb8m@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy) writes:
>>>
>>>Had to comment on this :)  Jerry, Jerry, Jerry ... If greater code
>>>size implied a higher chance of bugs, why do we use High Level
>>>Languages?
>>
>>To reduce the code size, of course.  I was talking about source code; I
>>thought that was obvious.
>
>Hmm, you don't consider assembly language -> source code?  That is what 
>compilers spit out, you know, hence my implication of greater # of
>source code lines with MINIMIZED human errors introduced.
>

Gosh, we *really* ought to make our meanings clear here.  When I said,
"source code", I was talking about code produced by human beings, be it
C, assembly, or whatnot.  The assembly language that a compiler spits out
is *not* source code.

>
>Current programming projects (size and complexity) would have been
>considered insane 20 years ago when assembly was all the rage, and 
>yet you say HLL's reduce code size? 
>

Absolutely.  For example, if I wrote a program in assembly language, and
then an *equivalent* program in C, the C source code, in all probability,
would be much smaller than the assembly source code.

>>>
>>>   1) HLL's have a one to many lines of code generation facility,
>>>      whose premise is:
>>>
>>>   2) Reducing programmer errors through machine generated, verifable
>>>      code.
>>
>>Yes.  So?
>
>I think this attitude is what bothers me most about you Jerry, your
>lack of comprehension and defensive attitude when people counter
>your "arguments".
>

I merely asked, "So?", because the statements you made were obvious and
didn't contribute to your argument.

I think we are arguing the same point, just from different directions.  I'm
saying that HLL's allow the programmer to write *less* code for a certain
function, reducing the probability of bugs.  Now, if the programmer can write
*less* code to create a particular function without bugs, he is encouraged to
create *more* code, as in, more sophisticated projects, which is precisely
what you're saying.  Am I right?

>>
>>That's incredible.  So a company that did Real Software Engineering (tm)
>>wouldn't ever need debuggers, revision tools, or any other software except
>>a compiler, which they'd run once per project, right?  Charles, you ought
>>to try living in the real world.
>>
>
>What other world do you think I've been living in Jer?  Heh.  Did I say
>that your above list doesn't fall into QA/program correctness?  Where
>did you get the idea that RSE (tm) didn't include all of the above items
>and I haven't used them in large software projects?
>

You stated that every program can be verified for correctness before a single
line of source code is written.  If this were practical, there would be no
need for debuggers or code control tools.

>
>I know EWD is very
>theory oriented, but just by referencing him doesn't mean I AM.  
>

Then why include the theory in the discussion?

>
>   2) Companies/people that practice RSE (tm) are disciplined, 
>      which means they use tools to create large scale projects.  
>      (Revision Control, Simulation, Formal Theory, Maintenance 
>      LifeCycles & Teamwork are all used.)
>

Fine, but if there were a company that did the Dijkstra thing and proved
the correctness of every program before it was written, that company wouldn't
need any of those tools, right?

>>>
>>>Therefore your comment to Mike is moronic, Jerry.
>>
>>No, just realistic.
>
>I guess I'm not that unhappy, not living in your "real" world Jer :)
>

OK, once again for the cheap seats, my comment to Mike was, "A large software
project is likely to have more bugs in its initial revision than a small
software project".  Why is this moronic, Charles?

>
>Charles C. Bundy IV
>
--
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jerry J. Shekhel  | Molecular Simulations | Time just fades the pages      |
| Drummers do it... | Inc.  Waltham, MA USA | in my book of memories.        |
|    ... In rhythm! |     (617) 890-2888    |              -- Guns N' Roses  |
+-------------------+-----------------------+--------------------------------+
|           ...! [ princeton mit-eddie bu sunne ] !polygen!jerry             |
|                            jerry@polygen.com                               |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy