[FRIAM] Rationalilzations or Causes?
Nicholas Thompson
nickthompson at earthlink.net
Mon Aug 6 15:47:01 EDT 2007
All,
While there may be an infinity of RATIONALIZATIONS for sex, there are
probably relatively few CAUSES. How many of you would actually take at
face value ANYONE'S account of why they wanted to have sex with you?
Nick
> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 8/6/2007 10:03:00 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. The Verifier (Roger Critchlow)
> 2. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> 3. Re: The Verifier (Prof David West)
> 4. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex] (Prof David West)
> 5. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Prof David West)
> 6. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> (Pamela McCorduck)
> 7. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Douglas Roberts)
> 8. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> 9. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Russell Standish)
> 10. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Owen Densmore)
> 11. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Douglas Roberts)
> 12. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Russell Standish)
> 13. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> (Prof David West)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:46:58 -0600
> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <Friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <66d1c98f0708050946s5661f94dw31d905b8d2e5cf1e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> biases among groups of researchers.
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=busine
ss
>
> -- rec --
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/bc759113
/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <001201c7d7ae$1d58f900$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally common bias of
> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process of entropy,
> seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>
> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning how so many
> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> examination of the facts!
>
> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for the purpose,
> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our forbearers were
> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
>
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>
>
> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> biases among groups of researchers.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> siness
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> usiness>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/7f8b286c
/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:40 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186355500.13653.1203862307 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
> Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and really
> written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms. A good complement
> to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> said:
> > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> > to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally common bias of
> > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> > the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> > the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process of entropy,
> > seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >
> > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> > networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> > network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
> > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> > of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> > and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> > final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> > by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> > Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> > being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> > of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> > discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
> > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> > and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning how so many
> > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> > then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> > the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> > examination of the facts!
> >
> > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> > is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> > them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for the purpose,
> > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> > exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our forbearers were
> > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> > built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040
> > tel: 212-795-4844
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> > biases among groups of researchers.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> > siness
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> > usiness>
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:25:20 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186356320.15204.1203862957 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers did
> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> group) who have sex as a:
>
> means to enlightenment
> a yogic discipline
> a way to experience unity with God
> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
>
> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting cultural
> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different set
> of reasons than those included in the survey.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> > I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information. I had no
> > idea
> > there were 237 reasons.
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org
> > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> > > Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> > > From: JerSol at aol.com
> > > To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> > > *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> > > By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> > > WebMD Medical News
> > > Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> > >
> > > /*
> > > *
> > > Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways
and
> > > comes up with 237 reasons.
> > > The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some motivations
> > > came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> > > The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> > > according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> > > Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> > > The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> > > psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> > > First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
to
> > > anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
women
> > > were taking psychology classes or were participating in other studies
at
> > > the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> > > All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> > > researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237 reasons.
> > > Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> > > and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
of
> > > the 237 reasons.
> > > /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> > > */
> > > The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> > > students' top reasons for having sex:
> > > 1. Pure attraction to the other person in general
> > > 2. Experiencing physical pleasure
> > > 3. Expressing love
> > > 4. Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> > > 5. Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> > > 6. Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> > > 7. Marking a special occasion for celebration
> > > 8. Mere opportunity
> > > 9. Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> > > circumstances
> > >
> > >
> > > The study also highlights five general themes that were least
frequently
> > > cited by the students.
> > > Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> > > rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money, drugs,
> > > or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
seemingly
> > > unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
duty
> > > or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> > > */
> > > The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> > > sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> > > Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> > > 1. I was attracted to the person.
> > > 2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > > 3. It feels good.
> > > 4. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > > 5. I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > > 6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > > 7. I was "horny."
> > > 8. It's fun.
> > > 9. I realized I was in love.
> > > 10. I was "in the heat of the moment."
> > >
> > >
> > > /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> > > */
> > > In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar to
> > > the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> > > according to the study:
> > > 1. I was attracted to the person.
> > > 2. It feels good.
> > > 3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > > 4. It's fun.
> > > 5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > > 6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > > 7. I was "horny."
> > > 8. I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > > 9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> > > 10. I wanted to please my partner.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > • Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's
Sexuality:
> > > Friends Talking message board
> > > <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
36,
> > > pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************
> > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:31:12 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186356672.16367.1203864253 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
>
> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> made the claim was for marketing purposes. And because programmers
> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> clue how to to OO.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> said:
> > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
evolution of
> > various computer languages. Turns our others shared our interest and
did
> > something about it.
> >
> > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > The
> > History of Programming Languages
> >
> > -- tj
> >
> > ==========================================
> > J. T. Johnson
> > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
> >
> > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > existing model obsolete."
> > -- Buckminster Fuller
> > ==========================================
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:49:38 -0400
> From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <10aacf4b49e1ff295a6726c77d8c619d at well.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Actually, "to become closer to God" was way up there on the list. I
> don't remember "a yogic discipline" as such making the list, but
> certainly "exercise" did.
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers
> > did
> > not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> > group) who have sex as a:
> >
> > means to enlightenment
> > a yogic discipline
> > a way to experience unity with God
> > to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> >
> > and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting
> > cultural
> > differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different
> > set
> > of reasons than those included in the survey.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> > <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> >> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information. I had no
> >> idea
> >> there were 237 reasons.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >> droberts at rti.org
> >> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>
> >> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> >>> Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> >>> From: JerSol at aol.com
> >>> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> >>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> >>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> >>> WebMD Medical News
> >>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> *
> >>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways
> >>> and
> >>> comes up with 237 reasons.
> >>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some
> >>> motivations
> >>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> >>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> >>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> >>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> >>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> >>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> >>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
> >>> to
> >>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
> >>> women
> >>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other
> >>> studies at
> >>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> >>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> >>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237
> >>> reasons.
> >>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> >>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
> >>> of
> >>> the 237 reasons.
> >>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> >>> */
> >>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> >>> students' top reasons for having sex:
> >>> 1. Pure attraction to the other person in general
> >>> 2. Experiencing physical pleasure
> >>> 3. Expressing love
> >>> 4. Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> >>> 5. Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> >>> 6. Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> >>> 7. Marking a special occasion for celebration
> >>> 8. Mere opportunity
> >>> 9. Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> >>> circumstances
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> >>> frequently
> >>> cited by the students.
> >>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> >>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,
> >>> drugs,
> >>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> >>> seemingly
> >>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
> >>> duty
> >>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> >>> */
> >>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> >>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> >>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> >>> 1. I was attracted to the person.
> >>> 2. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>> 3. It feels good.
> >>> 4. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>> 5. I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>> 6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>> 7. I was "horny."
> >>> 8. It's fun.
> >>> 9. I realized I was in love.
> >>> 10. I was "in the heat of the moment."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> >>> */
> >>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar
> >>> to
> >>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> >>> according to the study:
> >>> 1. I was attracted to the person.
> >>> 2. It feels good.
> >>> 3. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>> 4. It's fun.
> >>> 5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>> 6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>> 7. I was "horny."
> >>> 8. I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>> 9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> >>> 10. I wanted to please my partner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> • Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's
> >>> Sexuality:
> >>> Friends Talking message board
> >>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
> >>> 36,
> >>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> **************************************
> >>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> >>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >>>
> >>> ============================================================
> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
> "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
>
>
> Thomas Kyd
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:21 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f16528920708051704k7e933c8dr835770886b92ddf8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> As one who lived inside a LISP machine for years, and worked extensively
> building large OO-based applications using Loops, Flavors, CLOS, and KEE
> prior to the birth of C++, I pride myself on being a member of that elite
> 2%.
>
> I just wish I could get my fellow SW developers to agree with me.
>
> ;-}
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 8/5/07, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > made the claim was for marketing purposes. And because programmers
> > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > clue how to to OO.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > said:
> > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > evolution of
> > > various computer languages. Turns our others shared our interest and
> > did
> > > something about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > The
> > > History of Programming Languages
> > >
> > > -- tj
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > > J. T. Johnson
> > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> > > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >
> > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > existing model obsolete."
> > > -- Buckminster
Fuller
> > > ==========================================
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/1cafd975
/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:30:53 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <002a01c7d7c1$0c5c1610$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-Certina's
> "The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and only one
> copy. but in French it's only $25 bucks! Hey should I snap it up?
>
>
> Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040
> tel: 212-795-4844
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
> > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
> > Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
> > science is really done and really written about and biases,
> > blind-spots, and paradigms. A good complement to the even
> > older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > said:
> > > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
> > patches as keys
> > > to where I'll discover new things. One exceptionally
> > common bias of
> > > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
> > the time lags
> > > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
> > discovery
> > > of the independent developmental process that are
> > functional necessities in
> > > the occurrence of the response. An example? Any process
> > of entropy,
> > > seems to requires the local development of individual
> > self-organizing
> > > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> > >
> > > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
> > the topology
> > > of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
> > hubs changes
> > > network behaviors entirely, among other things. What's totally
> > > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
> > > distribution of connections, as it has become called,
> > develops as the
> > > network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
> > selection)
> > > to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
> > contribution to the
> > > direct process by which system producing the network
> > develops, i.e. to
> > > what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
> > cause of
> > > the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
> > > square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
> > connection, a statistical property
> > > discovered after the fact. I'm going page after page after page
> > > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
> > process by
> > > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
> > things,...
> > > and the answer seems to be, well, never!! It's stunning
> > how so many
> > > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
> > squarely
> > > and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not
> > > fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
> > > observant examination of the facts!
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
> > our tools,
> > > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns
> > > and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
> > associated with
> > > them, but is just not drawn to studying them. If used for
> > the purpose,
> > > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
> > direct causal
> > > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
> > consistently
> > > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
> > behavior to not
> > > exist. Just g.d. remarkable! Could it be that our
> > forbearers were
> > > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
> > tools were
> > > built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > NY NY 10040
> > > tel: 212-795-4844
> > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Roger
> > Critchlow
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
> > > cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>
> rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
> > > bu
> > > siness
> > >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
> html?ref=b
> > usiness>
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:07:23 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070805100723.GS3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> isn't an OO language at all?
>
> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
>
> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> up by the compiler immediately.
>
> More significant C++ deficiencies...
>
> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> different compilers.
>
> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> users.
>
> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> been fully debugged.
>
> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > made the claim was for marketing purposes. And because programmers
> > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > clue how to to OO.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > said:
> > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
evolution of
> > > various computer languages. Turns our others shared our interest and
did
> > > something about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > The
> > > History of Programming Languages
> > >
> > > -- tj
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > > J. T. Johnson
> > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> > > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >
> > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > existing model obsolete."
> > > -- Buckminster
Fuller
> > > ==========================================
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:45:23 -0600
> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <71997FD4-7BF4-4BC3-9611-130050328C64 at backspaces.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal. This was in
> the 1995-2000 time frame.
>
> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> shared libraries at that time that used C++. Also, it turned out
> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to
> agree on their dialect. Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> many ways to do the same thing. Even constructors had oddly
> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
>
> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof. We simply could not
> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
>
> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation. Groups like the
> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> implementation from the interface. At the time it was the only way
> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques. It
> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
>
> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> really loved it. (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to. Zero decided to
> do so. Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
>
> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> dialects. And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
>
> I presume all this has been cleaned up. But I remember a long
> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++. Not
> sure its there yet. Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
> guide folks around the horrors.
>
> HOWEVER: There is hope. Look at the D language, for something that
> may actually solve all the C++ problems! Here's the usual pointer:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
>
> -- Owen
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > isn't an OO language at all?
> >
> > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >
> > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > up by the compiler immediately.
> >
> > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >
> > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > different compilers.
> >
> > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > users.
> >
> > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > been fully debugged.
> >
> > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
> >> this
> >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> >> they
> >> made the claim was for marketing purposes. And because programmers
> >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> >> language was
> >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> >> clue how to to OO.
> >>
> >> davew
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >> said:
> >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >>>> evolution of
> >>> various computer languages. Turns our others shared our interest
> >>> and did
> >>> something about it.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>> The
> >>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>
> >>> -- tj
> >>>
> >>> ==========================================
> >>> J. T. Johnson
> >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>
> >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>> existing model obsolete."
> >>> -- Buckminster
> >>> Fuller
> >>> ==========================================
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:01:15 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f16528920708052101t73150256y1c99667b6c950477 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Interesting, Owen. I'm curious what some of D's features will result in,
> performance-wise. Particularly garbage collection, and the single
> inheritance hierarchy.
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 8/5/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
> >
> > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal. This was in
> > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >
> > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> > shared libraries at that time that used C++. Also, it turned out
> > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to
> > agree on their dialect. Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> > many ways to do the same thing. Even constructors had oddly
> > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >
> > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof. We simply could not
> > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >
> > So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation. Groups like the
> > multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
> > around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> > implementation from the interface. At the time it was the only way
> > to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> > implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques. It
> > also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> > system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
> >
> > This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> > really loved it. (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> > interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to. Zero decided to
> > do so. Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> >
> > This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> > isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> > dialects. And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> >
> > I presume all this has been cleaned up. But I remember a long
> > conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
> > its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++. Not
> > sure its there yet. Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
> > guide folks around the horrors.
> >
> > HOWEVER: There is hope. Look at the D language, for something that
> > may actually solve all the C++ problems! Here's the usual pointer:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > > isn't an OO language at all?
> > >
> > > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> > >
> > > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > > up by the compiler immediately.
> > >
> > > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> > >
> > > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > > different compilers.
> > >
> > > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > > users.
> > >
> > > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > > been fully debugged.
> > >
> > > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
> > >> this
> > >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> > >> they
> > >> made the claim was for marketing purposes. And because programmers
> > >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> > >> language was
> > >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > >> clue how to to OO.
> > >>
> > >> davew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > >> said:
> > >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > >>>> evolution of
> > >>> various computer languages. Turns our others shared our interest
> > >>> and did
> > >>> something about it.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> > >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> > >>> The
> > >>> History of Programming Languages
> > >>>
> > >>> -- tj
> > >>>
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>> J. T. Johnson
> > >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> > >>> 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
> > >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >>>
> > >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > >>> existing model obsolete."
> > >>> -- Buckminster
> > >>> Fuller
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>
> > >> ============================================================
> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > > Mathematics
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/78bc6ac5
/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:50:44 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070805115044.GU3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:45:23PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
> > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal. This was in
> > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >
> > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> > shared libraries at that time that used C++. Also, it turned out
> > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to
> > agree on their dialect. Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> > many ways to do the same thing. Even constructors had oddly
> > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >
>
> The ABI issue is still with us. Its less of a problem in the open
> source world (you just compile all your C++ libraries with the
> compiler you want to use), than in the close source world, but if
> you're in the habit of switching compilers regularly (I often switch
> between gcc and icc), it is a nuisance to have to rebuild all your
> libraries, or have special paths for different compilers. Its the same
> problem with those OSes that have combined 32 and 64 bit modes (Irix,
> the more recent Linuxes for instance).
>
> > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof. We simply could not
> > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >
>
> Indeed, one of C++'s failings is the difficulty in learning how to
> program it correct (not withstanding Meyers's fine efforts in this
> regard). But _once_ you have learnt, you are every bit as productive
> as in other (presumably easier to learn) environments.
>
> >
> > HOWEVER: There is hope. Look at the D language, for something that
> > may actually solve all the C++ problems! Here's the usual pointer:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >
> > -- Owen
>
> I'll look at D one of these days. I'm waiting for it to develop a level
> of maturity and adoption... I have been a committed C++ programmer for
> the last 14 years, but prior to that, I was a died-in-the-wool Pascal
> programmer. I do switch for better languages, when significantly
> better alternatives exist. At present neither Java nor C# cut the
> mustard.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> --
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Mathematics
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:06:58 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186412818.19485.1203968337 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
> If pressed into a corner, I would say that C++ is not an OO language at
> all - because the philosophy behind its creation is antithetical in
> important ways to the IDEA of objects. Examples:
>
> Simula is considered the first Object language (not Simula-68 which
> was a programming language, not an object language like Simula) and
> its philosophical foundation was to create "natural" constructs
> reflective of a problem domain that could be easily combined and
> connected to solve problems - with zero concern about the machine
> resources or performance efficiency required behind the scenes. In
> contrast - Stroustrup explicitly and adamantly refused to allow
> anything into C++ that would impair the speed of execution and
> efficiency of machine utilization that was available in C.
>
> Smalltalk - the exemplar object language (even though it is really
> class based and not object based like Self) had a similar
> philosophical foundation - to allow exploratory, "natural," and
> interactive dialog between domain experts (and children) and the
> machine in pursuit of a problem solution - also with minimal concern
> for machine performance, the machine was supposed to do the heavy
> lifting, not the human. The closest that C++ came to this idea was
> Stroustrup's intent to provide "discipline" to out of control C
> programmers who prided themselves on how terse and obfuscatory they
> could make code that would still run and provide specified results.
> (they had annual contests dedicated to this endeavor and probably
> still do).
>
> The object idea is fundamentally dependent on the concept that
> EVERYTHING is an Object - and any language that enforces strong
> typing violates this principle.
>
> Having said that - I would admit that C++ is indeed a Turing machine and
> is therefore, at its core, cannot be differentiated from any other
> programming language and that it does provide some constructs that allow
> a developer to construct objects (classes) and do object-like coding -
> but doing so is very unnatural, uncomfortable, and "feels wrong."
>
> The idea of objects leads one to very different analytical (mostly
> decomposition) and design solutions than procedural or data-based
> thinking. Given an object design it is very difficult to express that
> design in C++ and trivial to express that design in Smalltalk. (Ruby
> makes it easy to express the idea but does make it a bit more difficult,
> but only because you have to ignore some non-relevant aspects of the
> language.) Lisp - with CLOS, Flavors and similar extensions -also
> makes it easier to express object design.
>
>
> > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >
>
> I would be willing to bet that an individual proficient in Smalltalk to
> the same degree as you are in C++ could develop almost any piece of
> software in 1/3 to 1/5 the time it took the C++ team, and with some
> minor tricks make it run in as small or smaller a footprint with an
> equal or lesser number of machine cycles. I have consistently seen it
> done.
>
> davew
>
>
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> ************************************
More information about the Friam
mailing list