I agree that it does 'throw me out of my comfort zone.' Could you elaborate on how it helps get us to 'really concentrate on the way [we] code'? Would it apply equally well to using, say, 'ed' as the editor?
BTW, I recently read an autobiographical account of the development of Algol for Burroughs: Stories about the B5000 and People Who Were There, Richard Waychoff, April 9, 1979. I thought you might be interested in this remark due its rejection of prototyping in favor of a code-last approach:
...our benchmarks seem to encourage minimal thought given to the design of our software. We see benchmarks such as:
A. Successful Clear/Start.
B. BOJ for an object program.
C. Simple program compiled.
This kind of benchmarking almost demands that coding starts as early as possible. I would much rather see benchmarks such as:
A. Design of the language complete.
B. Design of the Scanner complete.
C. Design of the Statement Parsers complete.
D. Start of programming.
E. Project successfully completed.
Somehow I have the impression that Detroit does not feel that we have time to produce products that are superior in innovation and quality. So I can understand Lonergan's opinion that no company, including Burroughs, is likely to duplicate the feat in today's environment.
The point of the basic editor is partially as a leveller - you can pair more equally since neither person is in their comfort zone. I could say more, but I think it's a blog post of its own...
I don't think it would be the same with ed (I havn't used ed, but I'm assuming it's a bit like vim) since the usability for a complete beginner is poor, and most people will be beginners.
I'm not sure what point you're making with your account about Algol. Perhaps you could ellaborate in a blog post?
3 comments:
Hi Emily,
I've tracked down (and fixed) the fault where the output was not updated.
Cheers
Jon
I agree that it does 'throw me out of my comfort zone.' Could you elaborate on how it helps get us to 'really concentrate on the way [we] code'? Would it apply equally well to using, say, 'ed' as the editor?
BTW, I recently read an autobiographical account of the development of Algol for Burroughs: Stories about the B5000 and People Who Were There, Richard Waychoff, April 9, 1979. I thought you might be interested in this remark due its rejection of prototyping in favor of a code-last approach:
...our benchmarks seem to encourage minimal thought given to the design of our software. We see benchmarks such as:
A. Successful Clear/Start.
B. BOJ for an object program.
C. Simple program compiled.
This kind of benchmarking almost demands that coding starts as early as possible. I would much rather see benchmarks such as:
A. Design of the language complete.
B. Design of the Scanner complete.
C. Design of the Statement Parsers complete.
D. Start of programming.
E. Project successfully completed.
Somehow I have the impression that Detroit does not feel that we have time to produce products that are superior in innovation and quality. So I can understand Lonergan's opinion that no company, including Burroughs, is likely to duplicate the feat in today's environment.
Andrew,
The point of the basic editor is partially as a leveller - you can pair more equally since neither person is in their comfort zone. I could say more, but I think it's a blog post of its own...
I don't think it would be the same with ed (I havn't used ed, but I'm assuming it's a bit like vim) since the usability for a complete beginner is poor, and most people will be beginners.
I'm not sure what point you're making with your account about Algol. Perhaps you could ellaborate in a blog post?
Post a Comment