Re: Philosophical banter

From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 17:00:42 GMT
Message-ID: <_2zWf.197070$sa3.136589_at_pd7tw1no>


Marshall Spight wrote:
> paul c wrote:
>

>>HungryLion wrote:
>>
>>>research.microsoft.com/users/lamport/pubs/future-of-computing.pdf
>>>
>>>"The Future of Computing: Logic or Biology"
>>
>>Based on what I've seen from them before, I suppose they're about to
>>patent the future.  Based on what they've written before, maybe I don't
>>need to read it.

>
>
> I will neither support nor contradict your opinion of Microsoft. But
> it would be a mistake to discount something someone wrote just
> because they work there. If Leslie Lamport had retired in 2001
> instead of joining Microsoft research, he would still be one of the
> most influential computer scientists ever. Although, admittedly,
> the majority of his doctorates have been awarded since then.
>
> He appears twice in Wikipedia's Most Influential Papers in CS page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_publications_in_computer_science
>
> Citeseer statistics show him as the 13th most cited author
> in the field of computer science:
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/mostcited.html
>
>
> Marshall
>

Thanks and after reading Leslie Lamport's argument against biological meanings, okay, I'll take back my rash barb. Lamport shows some refreshingly clear thinking and use of words and I shouldn't have made fun of the reference without reading it.

For someone in the commercial world, besides pointing out how crazy are some of the metaphors we use, such as 'store' and 'execute', he's implying some fairly daring conclusions, saying his own company's products are illogical (along with those of lots of other companies). It would be nice if more people would call such systems illogical rather than cop out with porridge words like 'complex'.

pc Received on Wed Mar 29 2006 - 19:00:42 CEST

Original text of this message