The difficulty of overcoming nihilism is that there's nothing to overcome.
For instance, there are countries in which computer programs can’t be patented, But the patent offices say, “we’re not issuing patents on computer programs, we’re issuing patents on techniques that can be used in computer programs.” © techrights.org
Oleg provides various arguments against including call/cc as a language feature
“We have to distinguish the unexpected malware such as viruses from the expected malware such as Windows or Mac OS” © techrights.org
Proving theorems is not for the mathematicians anymore: with theorem provers, it's now a job for the hacker. — Martin Rinard
First there was Moore's Law. Now there's Stallman's Law
• While corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance in technology is an opening for them to further restrict its users.
When was the last time you spent a pleasant evening in a comfortable chair, reading a good program? I don't mean the slick subroutine you wrote last summer, nor even the big system you have to modify next week. I'm talking about cuddling up with a classic, and starting to read on page one. Sure, you may spend more time studying this elegant routine or worrying about that questionable decision, and everybody skims over a few parts they find boring. But let's get back to the question: When was the last time you read an excellent program? © Jon Bentley
"How do I know what I mean till I see what I say?" E.M.Forester
Разве не будет богохульным антропоморфизмом предполагать, что (божеские) верные теоремы обладают конечной длиной?
Это одна из множества веселых и задорных цитат из книги И.Лакатоса 'Доказательства и опровержения. Как доказываются теоремы', которая увлекательно рассказывает о проблемах математической логики.
There is on need to deallocate anything: the OS will just page it out.
The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell. © St. Augustine of Hippo
В 1999, Gerald Jay Sussman написал следующее:
Computer Science is in deep trouble. Structured design is a failure. Systems, as currently engineered, are brittle and fragile. They cannot be easily adapted to new situations. Small changes in requirements entail large changes in the structure and configuration. Small errors in the programs that prescribe the behavior of the system can lead to large errors in the desired behavior. Indeed, current computational systems are unreasonably dependent on the correctness of the implementation, and they cannot be easily modified to account for errors in the design, errors in the specifications, or the inevitable evolution of the requirements for which the design was commissioned. (Just imagine what happens if you cut a random wire in your computer!) This problem is structural. This is not a complexity problem. It will not be solved by some form of modularity. We need new ideas. We need a new set of engineering principles that can be applied to effectively build flexible, robust, evolvable, and efficient systems.
In the design of any significant system there are many implementation plans proposed for every component at every level of detail. However, in the system that is finally delivered this diversity of plans is lost and usually only one unified plan is adopted and implemented. As in an ecological system, the loss of diversity in the traditional engineering process has serious consequences for robustness.
This fragility and inflexibility must not be allowed to continue. The systems of the future must be both flexible and reliable. They must be tolerant of bugs and must be adaptable to new conditions. To advance beyond the existing problems we must change, in a fundamental way, the nature of the language we use to describe computational systems. We must develop languages that prescribe the computational system as cooperating combinations of redundant processes.