From: ccb8m@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: HLL's = More Code!
Originator: ccb8m@gingko.cs.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:06:48 GMT

jerry@connection.prospect.com (Jerry Shekhel) writes:
>ccb8m@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy) writes:
>>>
>>>That's a moronic comment, Mike.  Greater sophistication implies greater
>>>code size, which in turn implies a higher chance of bugs.  It doesn't work
>>>backwards; take a logic course.
>>
>>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.

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? 

>
>>
>>   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".  If you were an idiot no one would bother listening.
You aren't an idiot, but you are egocentric to the point of never
having to acknowledge another viewpoint.  I will continue to give
you concrete examples of HLL encouraging greater code size (OS/2, 
Unix, any relational database) but I doubt it will ever encourage
you to acknowledge "I am wrong".  

What is more, dear Jer, I will (in public), admit that I SCREWED
up the previous post by equating any sort of 'bug free' code was
possible (slanted towards the aerospace industry, whom I have
heartfelt admiration for!).  I SHOULDN'T HAVE SAID THAT, I WAS
WRONG!!! Ha Ha Hahahahah!  See it isn't so hard... 

>>
>>Also, depending upon the programming methodology
>>in use, QA/program correctness should be verified before a
>>SINGLE line of code is written, (Check out E. Dikstra).  I realize
                                                ^^^^^^^
Ouch!  Sorry Dr. Dijkstra!  My finger slipped again, dang!
                 ^^^^^^^^

>>that many companies don't practice software engineering, but that
>>doesn't excuse the lack of discipline.  Therefore your comment to
>>
>
>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?  I know EWD is very
theory oriented, but just by referencing him doesn't mean I AM.  

I said (about 1/2 page up) that you weren't an idiot.  Now you've got
me wondering BECAUSE you completely twisted my meaning around and I
thought it was pretty clear!  OK, once more and reference above for
comparision -  

   1) Anybody that sits down to write tons of code without any
      plan of attack that can be analyzed, is undisciplined.
      He/She is incapable of dealing with more than one person
      (themself) and chaos will result in any attempted large
      scale, manageable project.
     
   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.)


>>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 :)

Charles C. Bundy IV