Well, was Dijkstra right?

Well, was Dijkstra right?

Attached: 1502077129266.jpg (957x466, 85K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd13xx/EWD1305.PDF
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1036.PDF
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1298.PDF
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1287.PDF
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

You still doubt it?

Oh so right. Fire the ovens for the poos!

That's fair reasoning, but there is no such thing as perfect programming. There is no mastering programming. It's simply too variable and inconsistant to be perfect at.

a real programmer can program FORTRAN in any language

>literally science vs engineering
wow almost like not everything can be as perfect as a bunch of professors thoughts

/thread

ITT: People who have never actually read Dijkstra's ideas in detail beyond a few catchphrases.

Well it's been a while since i played witcher but i assume he was.

Attached: depositphotos_3735654-Kid-at-his-pc.-Monitor-can-be-used-as-copyspace..jpg (1023x682, 77K)

>>literally science vs engineering
Science studies things thst exist.
Engineering creats things that have never existed.

Except that CS is more mathematics than science. Math is about things that literally don't exist and will never exist. You make up rules and min-max using those rules. It just turns out that you learn things that can be applied to reality usefully (that process is engineering).

Of course, just take a look at snake oil "gurus" like uncle bob martin

Absolutely. Where is his quote about OOP?

>there are people who still think this
Wew lad

If only this was the biggest or only problem with software development.

To be fair, black and white reasoning is useful to inexperienced engineers. A priori reasoning about a complex system is *hard* and the Clean Code mentality offers some rules to keep going with some confidence in one's actions. It does fall apart for more experienced engineers who can reason with greater confidence on what the right thing is in a particular situation.

I agree that the marketing is bullshit.

He was right about the problem, but his solution was even worse than what we have right now.

What was his solution?

Programmers writing formal proofs to prove the correctness of their programs. Scales absolutely horrible.

>I like you too, you count without a county.

>There is no mastering programming
>The required techniques of effective reasoning ... people that don't master them
It's not about mastering "programming" but the techniques of effective reasoning. It's in the first sentence you fucking retard

Read these.
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd13xx/EWD1305.PDF
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1036.PDF

Answers that in the bullet point following that in OP.

He is absolutely right.

The rot has moved up the chain. Just look at languages like JS and Python. Absolute garbage, yet they are popular.

If people continue to think of 'coding as a craft' instead of 'computer science' the crisis will continue to get worse.

>computer science
COMPUTING science, please.

No computer should be in the hands of non-computing scientists, because it is useless to them as a symbol manipulation machine.
No computer should be used by most computing scientists either, because it makes them believe they can "run" or "execute" formal languages.

cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1298.PDF
Modern academia and ALGOL fetishism.

A tower of leaky abstractions means we should be sticking to smaller software works.
But we're not going to do that because money.

Something about Hoare:
cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd12xx/EWD1287.PDF

Why has he the handwriting of a 22ish american soiboi?

serious question
What work of him do you recommend ?

Attached: IMG_3405.png (1269x1688, 1.11M)

Because he had the balls not to care?

If only there was an algorithm or something named after him...
Hmmm

Yes I know the dijkstra algorithm but what are some of his best books and essays?

what are 'the required techniques of effective reasoning' ?

Mathematics. That's his definition of "mathematics."
In particular, formal systems, formal languages, proof theory and similar discrete system analysis.

Formalism is just a fancy game, and it doesn't do shit against cosmic rays, bit flips, etc