[FRIAM] Rationalilzations or Causes?
David Breecker
david at breeckerassociates.com
Mon Aug 6 17:10:23 EDT 2007
And then of course there is Dawkins' "Memes," some of which are
probably at work here. At risk of sounding prurient... may we know a
bit about the Penthouse statistics and trends?
db
On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> True, but the rationalizations are the only things that are important.
>
> As a cultural anthropologist I am interested in building models of
> culture - complex non-deterministic models and rationalizations are
> the
> only data points that are useful. Rationalizations provide some
> measure
> of insight into why people think they do what they do and these
> insights
> can be compared and contrasted with other aspects of culture
> (paraphrasing here, the complex whole that includes world view
> (metaphysics), values, practices, customs, and technology) to build
> models that are mildly explanatory and even mildly and statistically
> predictive.
>
> An anthropologist like Marvin Harris would be interested in causes
> - he
> explains Hindu behavior vis-a-vis cows in terms of calories available
> and the inevitable mass die off of Hindu's if they started to eat
> beef,
> or Yanomami violence also from the lack of available calories.
> Dawkins
> (selfish gene) would also be interested in causes - but in his case
> there would only be one - a gene's desire to reproduce explains
> everything, including the most exotic sexual practice you could
> imagine.
>
> In a similar vein - Penthouse Letters provides a fascinating insight
> into what Americans think turns them on. A statistical history of
> pages
> devoted to different topics shows some really interesting trends over
> the past twenty years - and not because anyone believes that the
> letters
> are "real" or that they reflect what people are actually doing -
> only in
> that they accurately reflect what readers think is exciting enough to
> read about that they would shell out the $6-10 to buy the magazine.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:47:01 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> said:
>> 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
>>> ************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> 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
>
dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu: 505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070806/b39b9e98/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Friam
mailing list