Re: Do have programs have poor documentation? (was ... Re: Why? -- "A Modest Proposal")
Lisi Reisz wrote:
> That is definitely debatable.
>
>
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ancient+greek+computer&oq=ancient+greek+computer&aqs=chrome..69i57.6858j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
> In what way is the Antikythera mechanism not a computer? And where did
> your 400 years come from?
>
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Euclid&oq=Euclid&aqs=chrome..69i57.3605j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=pythagoras&oq=pythagoras&aqs=chrome..69i57.4005j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
>
> Yes, I know that I could have gone earlier (Babylon etc.), but well
> pre-christian seemed enough here.
>
> You can't argue anything reasonably from the terms, since that depends on
> the language you are speaking at the time, which most certainly does not
> depend on the Christian, or even Abrahamic, God. I just looked computer
> up on Google translate and got:
> ηλεκτρονικός υπολογιστής
> (my Greek ante-dates PCs ;-) )
> But that I think is more "electronic computer", which is certainly well
> post Christian.
>
> And the term "program" is American.
>
I understand what you mean, but it was in the last 400y that this machine
took shape. In fact it was Turing that defined it. But he would not be able
to define it if it was not the mathematicians before him. I agree with you
as well, we could go to the roots of mathematics, however even if the
definition of such a machine was so old, it wouldn't be possible to build
it without the technical advantage, so ... I still think my statement is
true. You can argue as long as you will.
>> Shortly
>> explained if Keppler did not ask himself, how one could prove that god is
>> eternal and exists ... we wouldn't have a computer at all,
>
> As I say, I don't buy this. There are many analogue computers that
> antedate Keppler.
>
if you don't buy this, you miss the point.
>> because the
>> question of eternity/infinity lead via Gödel, Kantor etc to Allen Turing
>> ... who defined a machine that is able to run eternally.
>>
>> to your last point (trial and error) there are always two types of
>> enthusiasts - the average and the genius. The best example is Edison vs
>> Tesla.
>>
>> If a developer does not know how to document his/her work - he's a
>> crippled id*ot and must be fired.
>
> If he is not employed, as most open source developers are not, he can't be
> fired. People who are doing things as a hobby and because they enjoy
> them, do the bits they enjoy. Which is why so much wonderful open source
> software decays from bit-rot, without ever getting documented. :-(
>
Yes and this is the problem. Now everybody that could contribute in some
meaningful way is busy fixing the mess someone left behind and didn't
document (properly). Thank you!
regards
regards
Reply to: