A New Bible For Programmers?

KZigurs writes "The wonders of online publishing... If you are ready to take on a heroic task and read thru all 976 pages of Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming (draft) (pdf file, 3MB, intro here) written by Peter Van Roy and Seif Haridi you won't regret it. Just finished reading it and I feel like I have read the Bible. And who knows? It has the potential, and since current de facto books about programming are aging with increasing speed it very well may become one. (Please read the intro to get more detailed outlook at topics covered)
Anyone before heard about Oz?"

Comments

Re:OutDated?

[Asprin]

Well, I was actually making an ironic joke, but since you ask, I can certainly give it another shove closer to the edge of the cliff, so to speak.

First, let me say that I was actually serious when I said that programming (just like mathematics and logic) is not science.

This opinion was not formed without a fair amount of consideration (BS in math, MA in physics). We could argue semantics for many moons, but my definition of a "science" goes something like "A course of inquiry which employs the proper scientific method: only ask questions you can actually answer, employ direct empirical observation with proper control groups, verify the results independently (one trial does not a conclusion make), and reserve nature as the authority - you must maintain a complete willingness to be proven wrong."

Mathematics, Programming and Logic work this way because they conform to a different kind of rigor for validation -- namely, constructive or analytical "proof", which is not, by its nature, empirical. I'm not trying to refute, denounce or demean non-scientific studies, I just want to point out that "scientific" means something specific, and it does not apply to those other areas I mentioned.

BTW, one pet peeve of mine is when in sci-fi movies, the dude says "There has to be some kind of scientific explanation for this." Well, no: METHODS are scientific, not explanations.

Also, please note that many areas of study: Psychology, Sociology and Political Science (as well as certain areas of Biology and Chemistry -- needle, needle, jab, jab, ha-ha!) *could* be scientific in some cases, but typically aren't because they are populated by dumb researchers employing horribly poor experminental and analytical techniques.

So, having said that, I will conclude with the "on-topic" tongue-in-cheek gags:

Reproducibility: (In WRITING programs, not running them)
Since all developers on a project typically work from the same source tree, no programming results have ever been independently verified except the programming assignments in textbooks.

Control Groups:
Well, maybe you have a point on this one. I suppose a NOP loop would qualify as an effective control, but how do you halt the experiment?