Slashdot Mirror
Postmodern Computer Science
gnat writes "Two New Zealand computer scientists have a paper accepted for OOPSLA called Notes on Postmodern Programming, which identifies shortcomings in traditional views of computer science. With a section on the difference between "The Matrix" and the net, a bulleted list of new approaches called "We're All Devo", and a section called "Messy is Good" consisting of nothing but a scan of a hand-drawn diagram, this is not your father's computer science paper. It's thought-provoking stuff, though. And you know they did their homework--they cite Larry Wall's Postmodern Perl talk."
Here's google's html version.
"A good conspiracy is an unprovable one." -Conspiracy Theory
Different computer programs are different.
We cannot use one system of development to write all the different types of program.
Therefore we need to use a flexible language that does not have a rigid structural or developmental style.
That's it, we're done. We're just going to sit here twiddling our thumbs.
Oh cool! I can scan in a page of doodling and pass it off as a valuable insight into post-modernism. Only 15 more pages to go...
That paper was a waste of time and bandwidth. Be grateful that it is slashdotted.
My other sig is also a
Good summary here.
Here's another tip - that wasn't an academic paper. It's Larry bullshitting, having a laugh at all those who take him too seriously.
CMU
We have a very well thought out balance of theory and practice. In two semesters we go from SML (ultimate theory language) to C hacking.
Look, ma! I'm a karma whore
Hrm, we're a bit agonistic today, aren't we?
Google is your friend. Do a search for "futurist manifesto" (it's by Martinetti) and compare the style of the first section of the paper. It's obviously an attempt at emulation, and a pretty good one at that, I think.
The authors are clearly willing to make a joke or two and poke fun at themselves. You might do well to follow their example (if, that is, you've read the article yet).
cbd.
NEWSFLASH---
The "~=" used means "approximately equal to".
You are, in fact, agreeing with him.
There is not a single spelling error in what you've quoted.
Maybe you should look up the word "elide." (Hint: it's a verb that means to leave something out)
It's late, but I wanted to quickly challenge your cynical dismissal of postmodernism as a school of thought. But before doing so, I want to note that your skepticism is obviously well-informed. You probably deserve a reply more thoughtful than the one I can muster right now, but here I go anyway.
You quote Jameson's line, Any sophisticated theory of the postmodern ought to bear something of the same relationship to Horkheimer and Adorno's old 'Culture Industry' concept as MTV or fractal ads bear to fifties television series.
This is easy to understand for students of cultural theory. Basically, Adorno's criticsm of the "Culture Industry" (also known as the Frankfurt school) was a Marxist critique of Hollywood (an oversimplification to be sure). That critique by today's standards is old-fashioned, but still hold truth for dyed-in-the-wool Marxists. (as a sidenote, Adorno and Horkheimer escaped/fled Nazi Germany and their entire view is largely shaped by interpreting American capitalism as a kind of fascism.)
Jameson's own postmodern theory also has Marxist stripes. But in Jameson's view, our contemporary culture is infinitely more complex than the 1920's-era Hollywood that Adorno was writing about. As a result, a more complex form of critique is necessary.
The whole thing can be symbolized thus:
In English, "postmodernism is to the Frankfurt school of cultural theory as MTV is to 50's television."
(I'm too tired and lazy to hunt down the links that'll make this more than another rant, but you get the idea.)Postmodernism has its roots in art and cutlural criticism. Expropriations of postmodernism by science, technology, and history end up overlooking the origins of this material. No, it's not science, though science sometimes makes reference to it. Postmodernism is a mode of understanding and it is a specialized discourse, one that's as difficult for non-specialists to understand as assembly language is for the average end-user.
With all due respect
blog
Source: [US mirror 1] Adobe PDF (1797kb) ; GZipped PostScript (1700kb)
Source: [US mirror 2] Adobe PDF (1797kb) ; GZipped PostScript (1700kb)
Source: [US mirror 3] Adobe PDF (1797kb) ; GZipped PostScript (1700kb)
Source: [NZ mirror 1] Adobe PDF (1797kb) ; GZipped PostScript (1700kb)
The world of computer programming seems to be getting more 'pluralistic' by the day. In certain areas there is convergence but in general the number of technologies and methologies seem to be increasing at an alarming rate - almost impossible to keep up with.
Most experienced programmers realize there is no 'silver bullet' to the problem of engineering software, in most cases many sets of different methodologies and programming technologies could be combined to produce a working system, each with their own advantages and disadvantages.
The paper argues that this shouldn't be seen as a 'failure' of software engineering (and more generally computer science) but rather as something once realized can result in more pragmatic approaches to building software, such as using methodologies and tools which support multiple approaches (like XP and Perl). Mix and match styles that most suit, like people mix and match their beliefs in post-modern society.
His example of the Sydney Opera House employing modular/modernist components despite its postmodern design fails to mention the real lesson Jorn Utzorn learned. Utzorn's initial design for the shell roofs didn't include "ribs supporting them." His original thought was that they'd be self-supporting, but he never had the proper engineering studies done. Subsequently, they had the first 20' of the shells built up before he realized that his napkin-based engineering tests weren't good enough. At that point there was a mad scramble to find off-the-shelf materials that could be added to hold up the roof. Basically "modernist components" saved this guy's ass because he was too engaged in the "art" of architectural design and didn't pay enough attention to the "science" needed to make things work. The projected $10 million cost ballooned up to $150 million because of Utzorn's failure to take into account the laws of physics, so in 1966 he (resigned/was fired from) the job. The guy who took his place as design architect found out what a further loser Utzorn was as an engineer when he looked at the plans and saw that elevation drawings of the glass walls that enclose the ends of the "shells" contained no design or engineering specs for their construction whatsoever: basically Utzorn had written "glass wall" with an arrow pointing to the empty space. Nice, eh?
I think the important lesson the Sydney Opera House debacle teaches us is that postmodernism is pretty, but if you're using it in creating something functional, make sure it'll at least function. That, and "don't send an artist to do an engineer's job".
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
On the surface, this sounds remarkably like "Atomised" by Michel Houellebecq. Similar ideas, wrapped in a highly readable (and distrubing) novel. Published as "Elementary Particles" in the US.
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/book.html
Someday we'll all be negroes