Re: What databases have taught me

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 01:31:14 GMT
Message-ID: <CZkog.3154$pu3.75999@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Dan wrote:

> erk wrote:
>

>>Dan wrote:
>>

> To assert otherwise is to assert that
>

>>languages and systems have no impact on the way we think, and I think
>>that's silly.

>
> Again, I fail to see the validity of the logic. How does the assertion
> or claim that some languages or constructs are not better than others
> necessarily lead to the conclusion that languages and systems have no
> impact on the way we think? We are missing a lot of logical
> connectives and premises here in order to make this connection. I'm
> talking about form here.
>
> Regardless, what is the objective function for determining "better"?
> and does your statements then mean that users of some languages and
> constructs are "better" thinkers? Was Dijkstra an RM user? Wirth?
> Aristotle?

Dijkstra and Wirth used predicate calculus. Dijkstra credits Hoare with introducing him to it. (I am extrapolating to Wirth given that his work so often touched on Hoare's and Dijkstra's.)

Aristotle did not use predicate calculus. However, he broke ground on a little think called symbolic logic. It took a couple millenia and a lot of nurturing but the darn thing grew up into predicate calculus.

I agree they are all examples of exceptional minds, and I note they all saw the value of a good formalism. Received on Tue Jun 27 2006 - 20:31:14 CDT