By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,247 Members | 1,427 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,247 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

autocoding and the new MS book regarding software factories

P: n/a
Because the project is done in python and in support of FOSS

http://msdn.microsoft.com/architectu...aj3softfac.asp

"According to the Standish Group [Sta94], businesses in the United
States spend around $250 billion on software development each year on
approximately 175,000 projects. Only 16 percent of these projects finish
on schedule and within budget. Another 31 percent are cancelled, mainly
due to quality problems, for losses of about $81 billion. Another 53
percent exceed their budgets by an average of 189 percent, for losses of
about $59 billion. Projects reaching completion deliver an average of
only 42 percent of the originally planned features."

and text regarding industrialization (engineering)..

Interesting how they use the same figures and refer to the same issue of
industrialization as I covered 8 years ago on one of my first web pages.

From http://threeseas.net/mind/vic-objective.html

"PROBLEMS IMPORTANT TO SOLVE

Attention Getting Points

------ FROM ------
COMDEX SPRING and WINDOWS WORLD 95
Power Panel - "What's Wrong with Software Development"
** In The U.S. Only **

$81 Billion = 31% of software development gets cancelled before complete

$59 Billion = 53% of software development has cost over-runs of 189%

16% success - project success and failure ratio

61% customer requested features and functions make it in

Maintenance and repair is where most of the U.S. dollars are going,
instead of new, better, easier to use software.

[snipped out some of my own observations from being there - see link
*** Especially if you read
http://www.theserverside.net/talks/l...tss#KeithShort ]

------ AND FROM ------
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"

The article covers much the same ground as the above but with a focus
and flavor of the magazine. The article also goes more into solution
efforts with software development on large scale projects. But finding
consistent solutions are still hard to come by.

Mass-produced PC products makes up less than 10% of the $92.8 billion
U.S. software market.

Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between
chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution.
However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and
commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental
foundation for professional software engineering.
---------------------

They also refer to several other issues I have as well covered.
Such as levels of abstraction.. http://www.threeseas.net/mind/KNMVIC.html

I've posted about this and related issues before but now MS is talking
along the same lines and I'm not supprised as I understand their
longhorn and patent grab intent ... and have publicly stated these
things if you just search the internet. I don't claim MS is in any way
original, but we all know they take from others and claim ownership...

http://weblogs.asp.net/jnadal/archiv.../29/34413.aspx
----------
# re: Codename "MONAD" 10/31/2003 12:34 PM 3seas

Ok, what to many fail to understand is the sum total and what it means,
that MS is working towards.

The Common Language Infrastructure (CLI #2) is a sum of most all
programming concepts and datatypes then integrated into a
non-conflicting package so that most any language can be translated into
the Common Intermediate Language (CIL) and run on a run time engine.
This unifies all programming languages. But also another part of .NET is
that of Inter-Process Communications (IPC) and there is also direction
towards standardized GUI functionality. Then Add in this Commandline
Interface (CLI #1)...

(CLI #1) + (GUI) + (IPC) = the three primary UIs which is like paint
having three primary colors, for which you can create any color in the
spectrum. Take away one and you greatly limit what you can do... ok..
using these three primary UIs in processing the (CLI #2) it becomes
possible and probable that an autocoding environment can and will be
developed.

additionally by adding a voice to text interface to the CLI #1 you can
achieve the ability of the end user/consumer to ask for a program to be
created and the system will do it.

by patenting it..... all your base will be owned by MS... do a google
search in "autocoding" and be sure to set aside any arrogance and
ignorance you may and probably do have.
---------

The following information represents what is probably the best of what
is available thru the Web on the subject of autocoding. (via google)

HIRTS DARP Working Group on Autocoding, 18th, 19th April 2000
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/hise/darp/pdf/autocoding.pdf
(Brings up various issues which will help you focus in on what
"autocoding" is and what some of the issues to solve, are.)

The follow up to the above is:
May 8th thru 10th, 2001 "DARP HIRTS Workshop" paper by Jakob Engblom:
http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/repo..._report1.0.pdf
(See pages 5-6 section 3.2.5 The Use of Tools in Aerospace)

This link no longer works but.. available on paper
http://www.artes.uu.se/mobility/reports/

In summary, Though autocoding is being used to some extent, it is a
future hope, since in general it has a bug density which is an order of
a magnititude lower than manual code. Point being is that this is
leading edge stuff, an opportunity for OSS to shine.

To help show why I believe OSS efforts can shine when it comes to such a
project as Autocoding:

QinetiQ - Analysis of the Impact of Open Source Software
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/interopera...asp?docnum=430
link changed I think to:
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/documents/QinetiQ_OSS_rep.pdf

and From the Conference on the Public Domain, Nov. 9-11. 2001 at Duke
Law School "Coase's Penguin, or, Linux and the Nature of the Firm" by
Yochai Benkler: http://www.law.duke.edu/pd/papers/Coase%27s_Penguin.pdf

Automating what was done manually requires the identification of, and
ability to apply, the manual action set we use, but have the computer do
it. A USPTO Published comment introducing these identified actions and
suggestions of how they may be applied, including autocoding, is here:
http://www.threeseas.net/mind/KNMVIC.html

Now it seems that the core problem not only I but MS is running into is
resistance from coders...

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?si...&tid=187&tid=8
and the page ratings of the MS link (first link in body of this post)
and http://www.theserverside.net/discuss...hread_id=27697

Anyway, since there are those controlling python coders that don't like
me.... thought I'd post this. And to the GNU group.... Sorry RMS, but
software just ain't free untill anyone can easily create or cause the
computer to create it for them... for FREE... And real software
engineers that believe in the Free Software Foundation, FOSS, GPL, etc..
will understand this...

Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, threeseas wrote:
(CLI #1) + (GUI) + (IPC) = the three primary UIs which is like paint
having three primary colors, for which you can create any color in the
spectrum. Take away one and you greatly limit what you can do... ok..
using these three primary UIs in processing the (CLI #2) it becomes
possible and probable that an autocoding environment can and will be
developed.

additionally by adding a voice to text interface to the CLI #1 you can
achieve the ability of the end user/consumer to ask for a program to be
created and the system will do it.

by patenting it..... all your base will be owned by MS... do a google
search in "autocoding" and be sure to set aside any arrogance and
ignorance you may and probably do have.

Anyway, since there are those controlling python coders that don't like
me.... thought I'd post this. And to the GNU group.... Sorry RMS, but
software just ain't free untill anyone can easily create or cause the
computer to create it for them... for FREE... And real software
engineers that believe in the Free Software Foundation, FOSS, GPL, etc..
will understand this...


Well, there is no scientific foundation and in fact science tells us that
autocoding is not possible for arbitrary tasks. I believe, it is possible to
create autocoding (automatically generated) software for any little enough
problem domain, maybe, say, for writing GUI. However there is theoretical
abyss between modern computers and humans. It is called formalisation.
Only programmer's brain is capable to cross this abyss formalising any
non-trivial novel task.

And for trivial task we already have an interface:

$ grep -i word file | sort | uniq | wc

Saying the above, I must admit that more tasks become trivial as new
instruments arrive. So, programming users (CP4A anybody?) can
solve their 90% of their tasks by almost mechanical combination
of existing tools.

*

I imaging Year 2015:

Computer:
- by your command
GvR: (standing at his computer)
- computer, make Python 3.0 release. The grammar I sketched
on the paper in the scanner. Please guess semantics.
If in doubt post to c.l.p a question. If c.l.p in doubt make a
poll. If in doubt of poll results make another poll on how to
interpret poll results.
Computer:
- YES, SIR!
GvR:
- Good.
(after half an our)

Computer:
- I need your help
GvR:
- yes?
Computer:
- please affirm you want to pay $10k for the Microsoft license
and also Python 3 violates 20 patents.
GvR:
- Oh no!... (calling sponsors)
(after half an hour)
Computer:
- Python 3 ready. Total cost $21k.
GvR:
(typing "python3" at his terminal)
- Oh... But this is #D...
Computer:
- under given constraints this is the best solution. C.l.p poll
shows 52% of people support this as it is familiar to them.
GvR:
(upset, playing with his time machine controls)
(1 minute later)
Timbot:
- there is another option
GvR:
- What?
Timbot:
- freeware aka OSS

Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
--
rn*@onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3
Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a
Roman Suzi wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, threeseas wrote:

(CLI #1) + (GUI) + (IPC) = the three primary .....

Well, there is no scientific foundation and in fact science tells us that
autocoding is not possible for arbitrary tasks. I believe, it is possible to
create autocoding (automatically generated) software for any little enough
problem domain, maybe, say, for writing GUI. However there is theoretical
abyss between modern computers and humans. It is called formalisation.
Only programmer's brain is capable to cross this abyss formalising any
non-trivial novel task.


What science? Certainly not the science of abstraction physics.
You seemed to snip what you didn't want to consider .... sorta like what
those who don't want to see my presence on a python IRC channel, ban
me.... But denial is no proof against something, but only proof of the
choice of ignorance by those in denial.

from another direction -- http://www.codegeneration.net/generators.php

Software development is still quite young. Like mathmatics via the roman
numeral system, very limited. But then came along the hindu-arabic
decimal system with its "nothing can have value" zero place holder that
cause every thing to change, including the droping of status for expert
accountants in roman numeral mathmatics.

The science of roman numeral mathmatics tell us that the complexity of
calculation required to create a computer (as we call it today and in
hindsight - for it was beyond even imagination at that point) is simply
not possible to achieve.... go figure..

But if you are looking for a singularity or magic formula or holy grail,
forget it, it simply doesn't exist. But what does exist is:

Programming is the act of automating complexity, typically made up of
simpler parts (in comparison to the sum product of the automation) and
done so in order to make the use and re-use of the automation easier for
the user(s) of the automation. This is a recursive act, from automaing
some assembly language code into a higher level language function all
the way up to a typical user scripting (perhaps via some user action
recorder/playback application)so as to make some task of theirs easier
to do.

Its clear to me that Artificial Intelligence is.. well nothing is
naturally that stupid... an illusion of simply automating enough,
perhaps in a highly dynamic manner, to present the illusion of
intelligence. Its simply a matter of the foundation nature of the
technology... binary transistors... like a two deminsional creature
being totally incapable of comprehending a three deminsional being or
object.

Soooo..... to use an analogy we simply need to put away our roman
numeral mentality and its inability to comprehend that nothing can have
value. To drop the psuedo science of programming and get to reality with
the understanding of abstraction physics.
And for trivial task we already have an interface:

$ grep -i word file | sort | uniq | wc

Saying the above, I must admit that more tasks become trivial as new
instruments arrive. So, programming users (CP4A anybody?) can
solve their 90% of their tasks by almost mechanical combination
of existing tools.

*

I imaging Year 2015:

Computer:
- by your command
GvR: (standing at his computer)
- computer, make Python 3.0 release. The grammar I sketched
on the paper in the scanner. Please guess semantics.
If in doubt post to c.l.p a question. If c.l.p in doubt make a
poll. If in doubt of poll results make another poll on how to
interpret poll results.
Computer:
- YES, SIR!
GvR:
- Good.
(after half an our)

Computer:
- I need your help
GvR:
- yes?
Computer:
- please affirm you want to pay $10k for the Microsoft license
and also Python 3 violates 20 patents.
GvR:
- Oh no!... (calling sponsors)
(after half an hour)
Computer:
- Python 3 ready. Total cost $21k.
GvR:
(typing "python3" at his terminal)
- Oh... But this is #D...
Computer:
- under given constraints this is the best solution. C.l.p poll
shows 52% of people support this as it is familiar to them.
GvR:
(upset, playing with his time machine controls)
(1 minute later)
Timbot:
- there is another option
GvR:
- What?
Timbot:
- freeware aka OSS

Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi


Amusing.... Like writing a Buck Rodgers script as how the space program
will look like, huh?

I noticed you put alot of faith in the patent sysytem to be able to
maintain its command over father physics and mother nature, or at least
to convince humans it has such power. Perhaps someone should simply just
write out a patent application for anti-gravity and the patent office
grant it so we can all finally just have it..... huh?

But here is what is really going to happen:

you walk off a cliff and gravity will make you fall down. Likewise, you
try and put false constraints on what is naturally possible and its a
sure thing that father physics and mother nature will expose you for
your falseness, making you fall down (metaphorically speaking)

That is what is going to happen to the patent system in regards to
software. Especially when abstraction physics are established and found
to be natural and with a physical element that cannot be denied (patents
give the right to exclude) anyone. The absolute unpatentable nature of
abstraction physics and commonality of solutions via the then obvious
non-novel abstraction creation and manipulation mechanics.

from one side --- autocoding, from the other side --- code generators...

Those in the middle trying to hold on to what they want to believe is
non-automatable are going to get ....... exposed... perhaps die of
exposure... :)

The python programming language itself has made quite a bit that was
previously more complex to impliment, easier to use and reuse, via
automation of that complexity into modules, functions, classes, etc...

I have also found the eric3 IDE exactly what I was looking for in having
the ability to trace or follow thru the execution of python code and
variables it includes.

The only drawback I find with python is its required code indentation,
but that might be turned into an advantage in developing or configuring
an autocoding tool set for it. As it is perhaps easy to follow where an
autocoder shifted inward or outward in code depth/detail.

At any rate, the fall of the patent system in regards to software and
the establishment of genuines abstraction physics.... Of course OSS is
the way to go. its the ship that is truely capable of sailing around the
world and proving that the proprietary tech of the flat earth simply is
just a denial of what is, for only the benefit of a few. Together
openly, we can do a great deal more, and that is what IS. (tunnel vision
greed or wide scope benefits?)

maybe I've just given MS a few hints..??? shrug...(a matter of denial ... ;)
Jul 18 '05 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.