Re: I. M. John W. Backus
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:51:27 GMT
Message-ID: <35uMh.13526$PV3.139533_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:DYjMh.13388$PV3.138425_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:mDjMh.13375$PV3.138160_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's odd that the obit got things so wrong. Fortran is a monstrosity --
>>>>>>one of those abominable things that was just good enough. It's greatest
>>>>>>achievement was to show how not to write a compiler. Backus more than
>>>>>>redeemed himself a few years later by learning from fortran how to
>>>>>>write a compiler when he and Peter Naur came up with BNF.
>>>>>
>>>>>Compared to the languages and techniques we have today, the design and
>>>>>implementation of the original Fortran (and C, and Pascal, and ...) are
>>>>>pretty lame, but /compared to what preceded them/,
>>>>>they weren't half bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>Getting back on topic, one might even go so far as to say that SQL is
>>>>>the Fortran of its day.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about seasoning your future comments with a little dash of
>>>>>historical perspective, Bob?
>>>>
>>>>In what way did my comments lack historical perspective? Fortran is an
>>>>abominable monstrosity made all the more monstrous by its success. The
>>>>only good purpose it served was to teach Backus how not to make
>>>>compiliers so he could teach us all how to do it right.
>>>>
>>>>I am already aware SQL was disastrously successful too.
>>>
>>>The Wright Brothers' original Flyer wasn't perfect either; that doesn't
>>>make it a "monstrosity".
>>
>>Having never described any Wright Brothers' product as monstrous, I fail
>>to see the relevance.
>>
>>[snip]
>
> Analogy, Bob! Analogy! :-)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 11:51:27 GMT
Message-ID: <35uMh.13526$PV3.139533_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Bruce C. Baker wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:o2lMh.13415$PV3.138621_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca... >
>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:DYjMh.13388$PV3.138425_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>news:mDjMh.13375$PV3.138160_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>It's odd that the obit got things so wrong. Fortran is a monstrosity --
>>>>>>one of those abominable things that was just good enough. It's greatest
>>>>>>achievement was to show how not to write a compiler. Backus more than
>>>>>>redeemed himself a few years later by learning from fortran how to
>>>>>>write a compiler when he and Peter Naur came up with BNF.
>>>>>
>>>>>Compared to the languages and techniques we have today, the design and
>>>>>implementation of the original Fortran (and C, and Pascal, and ...) are
>>>>>pretty lame, but /compared to what preceded them/,
>>>>>they weren't half bad.
>>>>>
>>>>>Getting back on topic, one might even go so far as to say that SQL is
>>>>>the Fortran of its day.
>>>>>
>>>>>How about seasoning your future comments with a little dash of
>>>>>historical perspective, Bob?
>>>>
>>>>In what way did my comments lack historical perspective? Fortran is an
>>>>abominable monstrosity made all the more monstrous by its success. The
>>>>only good purpose it served was to teach Backus how not to make
>>>>compiliers so he could teach us all how to do it right.
>>>>
>>>>I am already aware SQL was disastrously successful too.
>>>
>>>The Wright Brothers' original Flyer wasn't perfect either; that doesn't
>>>make it a "monstrosity".
>>
>>Having never described any Wright Brothers' product as monstrous, I fail
>>to see the relevance.
>>
>>[snip]
>
> Analogy, Bob! Analogy! :-)
What's the analogy? One thing is a monstrous abomination and the other is not. Received on Thu Mar 22 2007 - 12:51:27 CET