Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox_at_dmitry-kazakov.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:41:28 +0200
Message-ID: <1ph7dgf4kt444.pe44h51fjszb.dlg_at_40tude.net>
>
> No, not fantastic; just what Simula was originally designed for. You
> can predict what each object will do, given certain inputs, within the
> confines of whatever passes as a definition for the language you
> describe that object in; but you can't predict what inputs will arrive,
> and in what order they will arrive.
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 09:41:28 +0200
Message-ID: <1ph7dgf4kt444.pe44h51fjszb.dlg_at_40tude.net>
On 28 Jun 2006 18:53:12 -0700, Tony D wrote:
>> "Large unpredictable state machines comprised of smaller ones" - >> fantastic.
>
> No, not fantastic; just what Simula was originally designed for. You
> can predict what each object will do, given certain inputs, within the
> confines of whatever passes as a definition for the language you
> describe that object in; but you can't predict what inputs will arrive,
> and in what order they will arrive.
Which does not make it unpredictable, if specifically 'non-deterministic' was meant. If something like 'halting' was, then sorry, but all languages are in the same position [was it about a language?] If that was about non-functional constraints (like real-time issues), then, well, RA is not in a beacon position here.
> (And if you have global side
> effects, the potential unpredictability goes through the roof.)
DBs are stateless, I presume...
> Hence,
> "large (I would say larger) unpredictable state machines comprised of
> smaller predictable state machines."
I wouldn't expect such statements from people claiming themselves champions of theoretical formalism.
-- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.deReceived on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 09:41:28 CEST