Folks,
I am a bit disappointed.
Okay, in this posting I will paste some german texts, so please don't
run away when you see them. I will give a little translation (my english
skills aren't perfect, but you will understand it).
Some minutes ago I visited the newsticker of "heise online" [1]
(something like slashdot) and read an article [2] about a virtual
university in Bavaria (germany). They offer free courses for students.
Well, I was curious and visited their website [3]. I surfed to their
information page about computer science and found a very interesting
course: "Neuronale Netze und Fuzzy-Control-Systeme"
(neural networks and fuzzy-control-systems).
So what was the description about this course? See: [4]
"Auf der einen Seite lag es an der Unzul�nglichkeit der Rechensysteme
(Arbeitspeicher, Geschwindigkeit), auf der anderen Seite war die
Entwicklung der zugeh�rigen Programme zu kompliziert. Insbesondere
erwiesen sich die Algorithmen zu den Programmen als schwer verst�ndlich,
die zugeh�rige Programmiersprache (LISP) bzw. Werkzeuge (KEE) waren nur
schwer erlernbar und kaum beherrschbar.
F�r neue Technologien, f�r bessere Programme, f�r 'k�nstliche
Intelligenz auf Rechnern' war so keine Perspektive gegeben.
Gl�cklicherweise begann um diese Zeit der Siegeszug des Personal
Computer mit neuer Hardware, neuen Systemen, neuen Programmiersprachen
(zuerst C++, dann Java)."
Here I try a translation which maintains the meaning:
"On the one hand it were the shortcomings of computers (ram, speed), and
on the other hand the development of programs was to complicated.
Especially the algorithms for the programs proved to be hard to
understand and the associated programming language LISP and the tools
(KEE) were hard to learn and barely controllable.
For new technologies, for better programs, for 'AI on computers' there
was no prospect. Fortunately at this time the triumphal procession of
the personal computers with new hardware, new systems, new programming
languages (first C++ then Java) began."
I must say that I am shocked about it. Some days ago we mentioned how
Java begins to replace AI programs even in universities. But that some
so called scientific organizations write such a BS is just shocking and
disappointing. However (un-)important this school might be, it just
shows that we are not able to deliver a message.
Links
[1]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/
[2]: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/48311
[3]: http://www.vhb.org/
[4]:
http://portal2002.vhb.org/katalog/dispatch_detail.asp?nLV=582&nSemester=39&nKatalog=15&nVersion=1
Andr�
--
André Thieme wrote:
> Here I try a translation which maintains the meaning:
>
> "On the one hand it were the shortcomings of computers (ram, speed), and
> on the other hand the development of programs was to complicated.
> Especially the algorithms for the programs proved to be hard to
> understand and the associated programming language LISP and the tools
> (KEE) were hard to learn and barely controllable.
>
> For new technologies, for better programs, for 'AI on computers' there
> was no prospect. Fortunately at this time the triumphal procession of
> the personal computers with new hardware, new systems, new programming
> languages (first C++ then Java) began."
>
>
> I must say that I am shocked about it. Some days ago we mentioned how
> Java begins to replace AI programs even in universities. But that some
> so called scientific organizations write such a BS is just shocking and
> disappointing. However (un-)important this school might be, it just
> shows that we are not able to deliver a message.
>
Why surprised? Recently, there was a post on c.l.l (I don't care to look
for it now), with the quote from Java developers (or a link to some
text) where Java is described as a language targeting average
programmer. Guys who wrote your scientific text must be just that!
Anyway, this is not the first time I've seen conclusions like this:
a) Some years ago Brian Harvey stated in one of his posts on c.l.logo,
or c.l.scheme (talking about his books/functional style) that
"unfortunately, most people find it difficult to think like that" ...
b) When promoting HtDP on c.l.scheme, one of the authors (S.K.) stated
that although he personally admires SICP, the book did more damage than
good. Talking about why is the book disappearing from universities, he
said that apparently, not only students find it tough going, but the
faculty as well.
c) Most (some?) Croatian primary schools (grade 5-8) teach Logo -- what
a wonderful way to start young programmers on the Lisp path? Right? --
Wrong! If you check their books, or what they are taught in school, you
will not find even the slightest resemblance to CSLS books (Brian
Harvey). What you will see is Logo code that looks like bad BASIC.
-- Hrvoje
Andr� Thieme <······························@justmail.de> wrote in message news:<············@ulric.tng.de>...
> Here I try a translation which maintains the meaning:
>
> "On the one hand it were the shortcomings of computers (ram, speed), and
> on the other hand the development of programs was to complicated.
> Especially the algorithms for the programs proved to be hard to
> understand and the associated programming language LISP and the tools
> (KEE) were hard to learn and barely controllable.
That bit about algorithms is funny! Our predecessors solved some tough
problems, but to do that they came up with difficult algorithms!
Solution: let's dumb down the field with childish algorithms for the
new crop of undergraduates.
:)
Gee, if you can't stand difficult algorithms, then, like, do something
other with your life than becoming a computer science researcher!
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> Gee, if you can't stand difficult algorithms, then, like, do something
> other with your life than becoming a computer science researcher!
I am always amazed at the number of computer science papers that
proclaim software written in ~15k LOC a "large system". Ha!
Carl Shapiro <·············@panix.com> writes:
> ···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
>
> > Gee, if you can't stand difficult algorithms, then, like, do something
> > other with your life than becoming a computer science researcher!
>
> I am always amazed at the number of computer science papers that
> proclaim software written in ~15k LOC a "large system". Ha!
Let me see. 15k LOC at about 40 bytes per line that's around 600 KB.
Or TEN times the available memory... on any workstation of the '70s.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not
want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
Andr� Thieme <······························@justmail.de> writes:
> F�r neue Technologien, f�r bessere Programme, f�r 'k�nstliche
> Intelligenz auf Rechnern' war so keine Perspektive gegeben.
> Gl�cklicherweise begann um diese Zeit der Siegeszug des Personal
> Computer mit neuer Hardware, neuen Systemen, neuen Programmiersprachen
> (zuerst C++, dann Java)."
They must be kidding. I do not think that anyone who knows (Common)
Lisp will ever make such a statement.
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
Signed and encrypted mail welcome.
Key-Server: pgp.mit.edu Key-ID: 0xD65B2AB5
FA38 DCD3 00EC 97B8 6DD8 D7CC 35D8 8D0E D65B 2AB5
Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden
slow implementation of half of Common Lisp.
- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming
Julian Stecklina:
>
> > F�r neue Technologien, f�r bessere Programme, f�r 'k�nstliche
> > Intelligenz auf Rechnern' war so keine Perspektive gegeben.
> > Gl�cklicherweise begann um diese Zeit der Siegeszug des Personal
> > Computer mit neuer Hardware, neuen Systemen, neuen Programmiersprachen
> > (zuerst C++, dann Java)."
>
> They must be kidding. I do not think that anyone who knows (Common)
> Lisp will ever make such a statement.
Why?
Roy I. Kobrinsky