Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #24633 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-15 22:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2024-04-23 06:24 +0000 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 30 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
The Continuous Amnesia Issue Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-15 22:34 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-16 10:51 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2024-04-16 21:34 +0100
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 01:43 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 11:03 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Javier <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-16 22:25 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 01:42 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-18 11:03 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-18 22:17 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-19 10:42 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-19 09:28 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-19 22:22 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-20 21:15 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue D <nospam@example.net> - 2024-04-21 12:24 +0200
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2024-04-19 17:21 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-19 22:02 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 22:05 -0700
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-20 22:42 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:50 -0700
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-21 02:13 +0000
Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 03:21 +0000
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-17 09:04 +0100
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> - 2024-04-17 15:19 +0000
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2024-04-17 17:40 +0100
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> - 2024-05-11 21:42 -0300
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-05-12 07:39 +0000
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-04-17 22:04 +0000
Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2024-04-21 15:29 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-04-20 16:19 +0000
Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> - 2024-04-23 06:24 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 03:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <uvnf78$1ct1p$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24633 |
On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote: > The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a > single word about reusability in the past 50 years. That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not actually doing it. I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become the established way to develop most parts of the software stack (except perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse follows very naturally from the ability to share, modify and redistribute other people’s code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 09:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <wwv8r1cpg7w.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #24648 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > Ben Collver wrote: >> The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a >> single word about reusability in the past 50 years. > > That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not > actually doing it. The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being ignored/forgotten. He refers to a NATO conference, and the reports are online: - http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1968.PDF - http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1969.PDF A cursory search finds only a couple of remarks about re-use. - First an observation (nato1969.PDF p19) that re-using code in different environments would benefit from automation to adapt to new environments, which is very much not forgotten, I can think of multiple examples that fit: (i) compiler platform definitions, (ii) configure scripts (iii) hardware probing/enumeration by OS kernels. - Second (p29) an observation that modules must be “isolated in an envelope” and encourage economical reuse of existing constructs. Again, examples are easy to see: (i) shared libraries (ii) class and modules in a wide a range of languages (iii) anything with a network-addressable API. > I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become > the established way to develop most parts of the software stack > (except perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse > follows very naturally from the ability to share, modify and > redistribute other people’s code. Indeed. And we’re a long way into finding out the downsides too - vulnerabilities arising from dependencies, supply chain attacks, etc. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 15:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <slrnv1vpmn.2vs.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #24649 |
On 2024-04-17, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being > ignored/forgotten. I don't know what specifically the author is referring to, but i have heard retired professionals talk about technical advertising and announcements of innovations, and having responses like "That's not new! We were doing that decades ago using _____!" I've heard it so frequently that it lends credibility, in my mind, to this article. I've also heard of marketing churn where vendors are continually bundling and unbundling their product lines, and the market has enthusiasm for this shell game, as though it had never been seen before.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 17:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <wwv1q74kkmw.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #24654 |
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes: > On 2024-04-17, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being >> ignored/forgotten. > > I don't know what specifically the author is referring to, but i have > heard retired professionals talk about technical advertising and > announcements of innovations, and having responses like "That's not > new! We were doing that decades ago using _____!" I've heard it so > frequently that it lends credibility, in my mind, to this article. Selling the old as new is, well, an old tactic; I don’t think there’s many conclusions to be drawn from it about the underlying balance between learning and reinvention. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johanne Fairchild <jfairchild@tudado.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-11 21:42 -0300 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <87seynlv28.fsf@tudado.org> |
| In reply to | #24654 |
Ben Collver <bencollver@tilde.pink> writes: > On 2024-04-17, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> The quoted blog is very vague about what the author thinks is being >> ignored/forgotten. > > I don't know what specifically the author is referring to, but i have > heard retired professionals talk about technical advertising and > announcements of innovations, and having responses like "That's not > new! We were doing that decades ago using _____!" I've heard it so > frequently that it lends credibility, in my mind, to this article. There is no doubt in my mind that---at the very least in computer science---one's education is better invested by studying the field's history than giving any attention to any current trend. (Ben Collver, thanks for the interesting post.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-12 07:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <v1pro1$2jr95$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24886 |
On Sat, 11 May 2024 21:42:39 -0300, Johanne Fairchild wrote: > There is no doubt in my mind that---at the very least in computer > science---one's education is better invested by studying the field's > history than giving any attention to any current trend. Better still, do both.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-17 22:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <uvph1f$1qshp$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24649 |
On 17 Apr 2024 14:37:15 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote: > The idea is that software entities should be open for extension, but > closed for modification. They didn’t have good version control in those days, did they?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-21 15:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Code Reuse (was Re: The Continuous Amnesia Issue) |
| Message-ID | <v03bc6$gh8$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #24648 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 22:34:53 -0000 (UTC), Ben Collver wrote: > >> The discussion moved at a level as if nobody ever had said or written a >> single word about reusability in the past 50 years. > >That’s because most of that 50 years was spent talking about it, not >actually doing it. In the eighties, everybody was talking about code reuse and how it would be the future and how all of our problems would go away. Not we have people throwing together code that consists entirely of library calls without actually understanding what those library calls are really doing. >I think the problem is pretty much solved now. Open Source has become the >established way to develop most parts of the software stack (except >perhaps the most specialized bits at the top). And code reuse follows very >naturally from the ability to share, modify and redistribute other >people’s code. There isn't enough modification and redistribution. We need to add two numbers, so why not just link in this giant math library? --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-20 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnv27qol.ad4.apple.universe@freight.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #24633 |
with <slrnv1rafb.3l3.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> Ben Collver wrote: *SKIP* [ 2 lines 1 level deep] > by Uwe Friedrichsen October 2, 2020 Sure thing, topic should be discussed with whoever started it. Not going to happen, I guess. *SKIP* [ 72 lines 1 level deep] > What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized > that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest > form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent > everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions > in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how > long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover your > insights from scratch. One thing must be made prominent: People who fancy cons is not representative sample of The Cheap Laborforce of The Industry. With this notion I conclude that people who fall in this slot tend to burn out in five years (for whatever reasons). But that's OK, they are promptly replaced with new ones. *CUT* [164 lines 2 levels deep] -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eric Pozharski <apple.universe@posteo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-04-23 06:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnv2el1e.ol8.apple.universe@freight.zombinet> |
| In reply to | #24633 |
with <slrnv1rafb.3l3.bencollver@svadhyaya.localdomain> Ben Collver wrote: *SKIP* [ 2 lines 1 level deep] > by Uwe Friedrichsen October 2, 2020 Sure thing, topic should be discussed with whoever started it. Not going to happen, I guess. *SKIP* [ 72 lines 1 level deep] > What happened? It kept me a while thinking. Eventually, I realized > that I had observed a disease of our whole industry in its purest > form: We continuously forget what we have learned. We always reinvent > everything from scratch. My personal observation is that discussions > in the IT community start over about every 5 years [1]. That is how > long we remember as a community. After that we need to rediscover your > insights from scratch. One thing must be made prominent: People who fancy cons are not representative sample of The Cheap Laborforce of The Industry. With this notion I conclude that people who fall in this slot tend to burn out in five years (for whatever reasons). But that's OK, they are promptly replaced with new ones. *CUT* [164 lines 2 levels deep] -- Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web