[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] The Touretsky and Shamos debate at CMU.
- From: daw(at)mozart.cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
- Date: 1 Dec 2001 06:38:30 GMT
- Distribution: isaac
- Newsgroups: isaac.lists.dvd-discuss
- Organization: University of California, Berkeley
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Scott A Crosby wrote:
>What Shamos claims is that it is wrong to distribute things with
>functional aspects. Shamos says that instead, one should just make sure to
>distribute it as something that DOESN"T have functional aspects.
In my declaration, I argue that oftentimes, code is a useful form of
communication precisely because it is functional: it is useful because
it is precise & unambiguous, and it is precise & unambiguous because of
its functional nature. (Computer tolerate no ambiguity, so writing in
code is an effective way to avoid ambiguity.)