(Mod this flamebait cause I'm going off...)aww, well don't you just look like a perfect young republican!!! How cute! Get your head out of your ass Jack. Any idiot with all the money in the world and enough artillery to kill the entire population of the world a million times over could do what Bush did. There's nothing special. Or maybe that's how you choose to live your life? Let me guess, if someone scuffed your pennyloafers, your first instinct be to kick his pansy little ass, right? People like you make me sick. Obviously, being respected and held in high esteem doesn't matter a bit, as long as we can kill your dumb ass! Like Dennis Leary said "Nothing means shit cause we got the bomb!" Let us all count our lucky stars that simple-minded, frat-boy jugheads like you are not in a position or power...oh wait a minute, THEY ARE! If you had half a fucking brain you'd take a a SECOND to consider what this guy is saying instead of eating every ounce of shit your 'government' shoves down your throat. I'm ashamed that I share a profession with you. AS I told a previous, equally closed minded potster, do us all a favor -- move to a deserted island and eats dead rats until you die from some god-awful disease. Don't worry -- we won't miss you.
Thank god you posted as an anonymous coward, lest you be exposed for the bigot and closed-minded fool that you are. What if instead of the indians being slaughtered, it was whatever unsympathetic race you happen to be? Would you feel the same way if *your* people were persecuted for centuries? Boy, talk about unwilling to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Do us all a favor and go jump off a bridge -- the world could use about 900 million less of folks like you. As I always say "It's all about EUGENICS, stupid!"
Sadly, I *don't* think the poster was joking. But I agree with you friend -- there is a severe unwillingness to consider anyone other than ourselves. The sheer arrogance and egocentricity of many of 'my fellow countrymen' is sometimes enough to make me wanna puke.
Boy, there are lots of ignorant folks out there. The parent poster was *absolutely* correct. And you know what, call me a fucking traitor bastard sonofabitch and go vote for Bush, but what UBL said today was right on the money. I was in New York on September 11 2001. I watched those buildings crumble before my own eyes. I still have trouble thinking about that day, and what it means now. But really, do you honestly think that they want to attack us because we live in a free society? Fuck no! The problem is that those in a position to take a hard look at our policies like 1) why are we so buddy-buddy with Israel and 2) why are we so dependent on middle eastern oil don't want to because it would mean re-evaluating our position on some sensitive issues (labeled sensitive because it would mean going contrary to the wishes of those that fill the pockets of our 'elected officials'). So instead we listen to some meaningless bullshit from some neocon with his head so far up his ass he doesn't even know when the sun rises.
Look, we're not going to 'win the war on terrorism' by bombing the shit out of innocent civilians. And we won't do it by killing everyone who wishes us harm, because new ones are being born every day, and this cycle of hatred will continue until we look at ourselves and can truly answer the question "Why do they want to kill us?" The answer is not simple, and the fact that the issue is clouded by religion makes it even worse (which UBL knows, which is why he, like so many others, uses religion as a banner for some personal agenda). But I GUARANTEE you that more killing and over-spun meaningless rhetoric will only leave us with more death and destruction. Think about it people...this isn't some machsimo game as the current administration would have you believe. Unfortunately, Kerry is no better, as was evidenced by his speech today in response to this new video - but I digress as I believe that making this about politics is dangerous too as it obscures the real problems we need to confront. American politics is a goddamnded game made up by those with Money & Power, and this is just more fuel for their fire. What's it gonna take before we realize that we need a better way to go about this?
I agree totally. What bothers me is that many people these days equate computer science with programming. Hell, I did too when I started school. However, as I progressed it dawned on me that programming is actually only a small part of what defines my field. That was made even clearer when I got my first job.
Unless, of course, you ask one of these little script kiddies / perl hackers on slashdot to define computer science. But I digress...
This may seem a bit harsh, but I think that these types of programs are one of the major reasons that the CS profession is advancing so slowly. There's tons of exciting research going on, but what do most people in this field spend their days doing? Sitting in front of a keyboard, typing. It doesn't get any more primitive than that. To top it off, it's not because we don't HAVE the capability to do it any other way - we do - but because people don't know since they think that computer science == programming, end of story.
I think there needs to be a stronger distinction of exactly what defines our field, similar to the distinctions made in some engineering fields (for example, the difference between a degree in EE and a degree in EET).
...is related to the fact that record label buyouts continue at an alarming rate, and with each takeover somewhere between 50-70% of the label's previous roster of artists is cut due to 'poor sales'. The fact is that in today's music business talent and innovation have taken a backseat to image, star power, and the willingness to sell your soul to a corporate god to make millions. Make no mistake - there is some great music out there if you're willing to take some time to find it. A few disgustingly rich dudes own all of the major labels, and radio stations are simply mouthpieces of the major labels, and soon enough people like (insert name of talentless pop star) are being called 'the voice of our generation'. Sorry, but count me out.
I think there are bigger problems with most CS curricula than whether or not to teach assembly first.
When I was in school, the only thing I learned before learning assembly was Pascal (which is equivalent to nothing). In fact, assembly was really the only language I was taught in school - I taught myself C, C++, perl, etc. It's not clear to me that learning assembly first is necessarily a better path, but I do believe that following to be true:
- Any CS'er should know at least SOME assembly
- Any CS'er should be familiar with how the machine works (which, sadly, many do not)
- Any CS'er should be familiar with the low-level interaction between SW & HW (which, sadly, many do not)
I see this as more a fundamental problem of the super-specialization of science majors. I double majored in both CS and EE, so I got the best of both worlds; however with just a CS degree I would have had very little experience with anything related to hardware. Seems to me that these days CS programs are just programmer factories, churning out loads of mediocre programmers who know a lot about Java but little about much else.
For the most part, programmers are one-trick ponies, and I suppose that's OK since the need for them will not diminish anytime soon. The sad part about that is until we as an industry begin to aggressively pursue alternative methods for software development, we're going nowhere fast. The traditional, high-cost, time-consuming development processes really are our glass ceiling.
Do you REALLY believe that people who work at NASA, especially at JPL (which, if I might add, is run by Caltech, arguably the most respected research institute in the world, run by a nobel prize winner) would hire people who did something as asenine and ridiculous as writing flight code in Java? Especially if it resembels any code you ever wrote. Trust me, this stuff really IS rocket science.
While these things are deisgned to run as long as possible without reboot, they are alos designed to persist any power cycling. These things are way more robust than most people realize.
This is correct. The planning and execution software used for ground based operations is written in Java. The flight code for MER, however, is not. Currently the biggest interest in Java for flight projects is in Project Goldengate, which is investigating the feasibility of using a combination of RT/Linux and RTSJ to create flight systems. If you google on Project Goldengate (and possibly include Dvorak in your search) you'll find some interesting info. Bottom line: not yet ready for prime time, but not totally out of the picture.
Besides, soon there will be no more programmers, and languages as we currently think of them will be a thing of the past...
Actually VxWorks (Wind River's real-time, embedded OS) is not used exclusively by NASA. VxWorks is highly customizeable, which makes it handy for applications where space/speed tradeoffs are often necessary. VxWorks is used is a myriad of applications, from automobiles to EMCs to whatever you can think of. In addition, it's gotten much more robust in recent years, partially due to the exposure it's gotten in the space exploration community (i.e. JPL missions).
First of all, there is no explosive material on Deep Impact, aside from the pyros used for the usual stuff. The impactor is essentially a 380kg 'bullet' with a camera and a flight computer. 24 hours out the impactor is released and aimed at the comet. After that, navigation software takes over (the same autonomous navigation software tested and validated on DS1) and aims the impactor at the comet nucleus, performing TCMs at appropriate intervals. There are several prevailing theories on exactly what sort of crater will occur on impact since no one's really sure what these guys are made of.
But most importantly there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of the impact causing the comet to be of any threat to earth (or any other planet for that matter). As Deep Impact Principal Investigator Mike A'Hearn put it, (and this is paraphrase), it would be like a pebble hitting a semi travelling at 100 mph.
Take a good look at the website, http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov. There's a ton of material over there, a lot of it having to do with the questions you raised. This is a great mission, promising to return even more science about comets and what they tell us about the origins of our universe than any mission has thus far.
Keep your eyes to the sky on July 4 2005...
I will NEVER give Spielberg....
on
Taken?
·
· Score: 1
...another dime out of my pocket or another second of my time. After AI and that ball of crap Minority Report, I'm through with good old S.S.
OK, this is the last post I'll make on this; if I had any semblance of a life I would have quit a long time ago.
The failure of the Ariane 5 10-tonne on Nov 28 was NOT due to conditions beyond the control of the mission operators. When the shuttle doesn't take off because of weather, the controllers make a decision and say "OK, it's not safe, we're no go". What happened with the A5 was nothing like that. If you equate a room full of people waiting for a rocket to lift off and then scratching their heads when it's T+5sec and the rocket is still on the ground with a mission controller calling off a launch and everyone going home then I really do understand why you keep posting as Anonymous Coward since you have no idea what you're talking about.
BTW, do you even know the story behind the original Ariane 5 failure? I am guessing not.
That WAS a failure. The controllers didn't abort that launch - it was initiated by the on-board software. As far as I'm concerned, that's a failure. It didn't launch..smells like a failure to me.
Take another read over my post. That's exactly what I was saying - there are successes ALL THE TIME but when there are multiple high-publicity failures such as this no one seems to remember this. And I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying it was easy. Losing missions is a way of life in the space business, but no on the outside seems to realize that.
And trust me, all of my space information comes from people who I converse with on a daily basis - not the phreaks on slash who think they can build a rocket in their backyard.
...the current state of the space business. In the last 4 months, there have been no less than five (5) disatrous blows. - Loss of CONTOUR - Russia's pullback from ISS - TWO new Ariane5 failures only weeks apart - Loss of Astra-1K
And it's not that it makes me think the technology isn't there - it is. I know it is; I've seen it firsthand. But the PR mess that it creates is the worst part, especially since we are in the midst of the 'give-no-money-to-space-since-they-lose-satellites -even-though-we-realize-that-no-space-program-will -have-100%-success' attitude. And we end up forgetting all the good which we get out of it: the amazing data we're getting from Galileo (still!) and Mars Odyssey; all the good stuff left to come, like Deep Impact and the two new Mars Rovers (which will hopefully take off as scheduled, but I have my doubts. Weekly checks of the status reports on the Athena Instruments site are not too promising).
But I suppose that I am rambling. It makes me angry and sad at the same time, since I have a sinking feeling that the reasons behind the current Ariane failure will be all too similar to the reasons for the failure of the initial Ariane 5. I just hope that in the near, the VERY near future we can have a string of spectacularly successful missions so that people (i.e. congress and the dudes withh $$$) realize that these are dollars well spent.
Yea just as I figured. Let's all take my comments out of context. If your kid is 8, unless he comes and says to you "Daddy, I want to know the joys of free software", LET IT SLIDE. Geez. And I AM AWARE that some people find it "fun" (although I don't think that's the right word - stimulating is better) be realistic. Pretty soon Spock and Bradshaw will be replaced by O'Reilly and Wrox - and I don't want to live in that world.
Here's the straight dope: The vendor actually CHANGED the specs in the middle of the project (from one unit system to another - I don't remember the order) and this information was not trickled down the chain. So it was purely a communication error (unexcusable nontheless, but I do not blame the guy who wrote the code).
Also, the Ariane 5 disaster was a result of improper code reuse - this is true. Be sure to check out my post earlier (titled "There are some really amazing things going on...") that deals with some of the techniques currently being investigated/employed to solve reuse errors just like that (and this is precisely the pitfall of OOA/D - it really DOESN'T aide in reuse all that much).
Just my thoughts...except for the Mars stuff. That's 100% true.
Sure. I'll also recommend some books which are on the cutting edge of what's going on in these areas. By far the definitive guide is "Generative Programming" by Czarnecki and Eisenecker. They delve into Domain Engineering, Aspect Oriented Programming, Intentional Programming (being developed by Simonyi @ MS), and other topics in general programming. The book is great, and you can check out Czarnecki's website associated with it which includes source code and links to other online resources. Other literature currently close to my heart is "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu, which deals with Policy Based library design (closely related to the idea of generative programming; it allows C++ to act as a 2-tiered language by giving the compiler the ability to make decisions on what should be compiled), and anything that you can find on the Eiffel programming language (I suggest The Official Eiffel Software Homepage) which implements Design by Contract (DBC). Basically this states that there are certain pre- and post- conditions which must be met by each part of your program and places constraints on the code based on the 'contracts'. As a side note, this can currently be spoofed in C++ by using the static assertion library.
Wow, that was long-winded. In any case, hope that helps. If you want more info, drop another post.
...and I'm surprised no one mentions it too often. Things like generative programming, aspect oriented programming, domain engineering, the list goes on. They are all headed towards filling in the gaps where OOA/D falls short (and yes, it DOES fall short. WAY short) and creating flexible, general programs that are highly reusable and highly correct with a minimum of change. It's really great stuff, straight out of Star Trek. And if you think it's just theory, it's not. Do some research and find out that big (and I mean BIG) companies are going this way.
...listening to the EFF might be a bad idea. Did anyone ever take a moment to think that it just might be ok not to listen to these morons? Uh-oh, now I'll probably be kicked off/. for life for saying that. Oooh!
Slashdot Mirror
(Mod this flamebait cause I'm going off...)aww, well don't you just look like a perfect young republican!!! How cute! Get your head out of your ass Jack. Any idiot with all the money in the world and enough artillery to kill the entire population of the world a million times over could do what Bush did. There's nothing special. Or maybe that's how you choose to live your life? Let me guess, if someone scuffed your pennyloafers, your first instinct be to kick his pansy little ass, right? People like you make me sick. Obviously, being respected and held in high esteem doesn't matter a bit, as long as we can kill your dumb ass! Like Dennis Leary said "Nothing means shit cause we got the bomb!" Let us all count our lucky stars that simple-minded, frat-boy jugheads like you are not in a position or power...oh wait a minute, THEY ARE! If you had half a fucking brain you'd take a a SECOND to consider what this guy is saying instead of eating every ounce of shit your 'government' shoves down your throat. I'm ashamed that I share a profession with you. AS I told a previous, equally closed minded potster, do us all a favor -- move to a deserted island and eats dead rats until you die from some god-awful disease. Don't worry -- we won't miss you.
Thank god you posted as an anonymous coward, lest you be exposed for the bigot and closed-minded fool that you are. What if instead of the indians being slaughtered, it was whatever unsympathetic race you happen to be? Would you feel the same way if *your* people were persecuted for centuries? Boy, talk about unwilling to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Do us all a favor and go jump off a bridge -- the world could use about 900 million less of folks like you. As I always say "It's all about EUGENICS, stupid!"
Sadly, I *don't* think the poster was joking. But I agree with you friend -- there is a severe unwillingness to consider anyone other than ourselves. The sheer arrogance and egocentricity of many of 'my fellow countrymen' is sometimes enough to make me wanna puke.
Boy, there are lots of ignorant folks out there. The parent poster was *absolutely* correct. And you know what, call me a fucking traitor bastard sonofabitch and go vote for Bush, but what UBL said today was right on the money. I was in New York on September 11 2001. I watched those buildings crumble before my own eyes. I still have trouble thinking about that day, and what it means now. But really, do you honestly think that they want to attack us because we live in a free society? Fuck no! The problem is that those in a position to take a hard look at our policies like 1) why are we so buddy-buddy with Israel and 2) why are we so dependent on middle eastern oil don't want to because it would mean re-evaluating our position on some sensitive issues (labeled sensitive because it would mean going contrary to the wishes of those that fill the pockets of our 'elected officials'). So instead we listen to some meaningless bullshit from some neocon with his head so far up his ass he doesn't even know when the sun rises. Look, we're not going to 'win the war on terrorism' by bombing the shit out of innocent civilians. And we won't do it by killing everyone who wishes us harm, because new ones are being born every day, and this cycle of hatred will continue until we look at ourselves and can truly answer the question "Why do they want to kill us?" The answer is not simple, and the fact that the issue is clouded by religion makes it even worse (which UBL knows, which is why he, like so many others, uses religion as a banner for some personal agenda). But I GUARANTEE you that more killing and over-spun meaningless rhetoric will only leave us with more death and destruction. Think about it people...this isn't some machsimo game as the current administration would have you believe. Unfortunately, Kerry is no better, as was evidenced by his speech today in response to this new video - but I digress as I believe that making this about politics is dangerous too as it obscures the real problems we need to confront. American politics is a goddamnded game made up by those with Money & Power, and this is just more fuel for their fire. What's it gonna take before we realize that we need a better way to go about this?
Unless, of course, you ask one of these little script kiddies / perl hackers on slashdot to define computer science. But I digress...
This may seem a bit harsh, but I think that these types of programs are one of the major reasons that the CS profession is advancing so slowly. There's tons of exciting research going on, but what do most people in this field spend their days doing? Sitting in front of a keyboard, typing. It doesn't get any more primitive than that. To top it off, it's not because we don't HAVE the capability to do it any other way - we do - but because people don't know since they think that computer science == programming, end of story.
I think there needs to be a stronger distinction of exactly what defines our field, similar to the distinctions made in some engineering fields (for example, the difference between a degree in EE and a degree in EET).
Finally, as an example of real CS work in action, check out this artical from the January issue of Computer magazine: http://www.computer.org/computer/homepage/0104/Reg an/
...is related to the fact that record label buyouts continue at an alarming rate, and with each takeover somewhere between 50-70% of the label's previous roster of artists is cut due to 'poor sales'. The fact is that in today's music business talent and innovation have taken a backseat to image, star power, and the willingness to sell your soul to a corporate god to make millions. Make no mistake - there is some great music out there if you're willing to take some time to find it. A few disgustingly rich dudes own all of the major labels, and radio stations are simply mouthpieces of the major labels, and soon enough people like (insert name of talentless pop star) are being called 'the voice of our generation'. Sorry, but count me out.
I think there are bigger problems with most CS curricula than whether or not to teach assembly first. When I was in school, the only thing I learned before learning assembly was Pascal (which is equivalent to nothing). In fact, assembly was really the only language I was taught in school - I taught myself C, C++, perl, etc. It's not clear to me that learning assembly first is necessarily a better path, but I do believe that following to be true: - Any CS'er should know at least SOME assembly - Any CS'er should be familiar with how the machine works (which, sadly, many do not) - Any CS'er should be familiar with the low-level interaction between SW & HW (which, sadly, many do not) I see this as more a fundamental problem of the super-specialization of science majors. I double majored in both CS and EE, so I got the best of both worlds; however with just a CS degree I would have had very little experience with anything related to hardware. Seems to me that these days CS programs are just programmer factories, churning out loads of mediocre programmers who know a lot about Java but little about much else. For the most part, programmers are one-trick ponies, and I suppose that's OK since the need for them will not diminish anytime soon. The sad part about that is until we as an industry begin to aggressively pursue alternative methods for software development, we're going nowhere fast. The traditional, high-cost, time-consuming development processes really are our glass ceiling.
Do you REALLY believe that people who work at NASA, especially at JPL (which, if I might add, is run by Caltech, arguably the most respected research institute in the world, run by a nobel prize winner) would hire people who did something as asenine and ridiculous as writing flight code in Java? Especially if it resembels any code you ever wrote. Trust me, this stuff really IS rocket science.
Some of the code has been, is, and always will be written in assembly. But before C, fortran was the language of choice.
I'm on DI...it's always cool to see your hard work recognized (not to mention having your face on the front page of the project homepage...)
While these things are deisgned to run as long as possible without reboot, they are alos designed to persist any power cycling. These things are way more robust than most people realize.
This is correct. The planning and execution software used for ground based operations is written in Java. The flight code for MER, however, is not. Currently the biggest interest in Java for flight projects is in Project Goldengate, which is investigating the feasibility of using a combination of RT/Linux and RTSJ to create flight systems. If you google on Project Goldengate (and possibly include Dvorak in your search) you'll find some interesting info. Bottom line: not yet ready for prime time, but not totally out of the picture. Besides, soon there will be no more programmers, and languages as we currently think of them will be a thing of the past...
Actually VxWorks (Wind River's real-time, embedded OS) is not used exclusively by NASA. VxWorks is highly customizeable, which makes it handy for applications where space/speed tradeoffs are often necessary. VxWorks is used is a myriad of applications, from automobiles to EMCs to whatever you can think of. In addition, it's gotten much more robust in recent years, partially due to the exposure it's gotten in the space exploration community (i.e. JPL missions).
First of all, there is no explosive material on Deep Impact, aside from the pyros used for the usual stuff. The impactor is essentially a 380kg 'bullet' with a camera and a flight computer. 24 hours out the impactor is released and aimed at the comet. After that, navigation software takes over (the same autonomous navigation software tested and validated on DS1) and aims the impactor at the comet nucleus, performing TCMs at appropriate intervals. There are several prevailing theories on exactly what sort of crater will occur on impact since no one's really sure what these guys are made of. But most importantly there is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of the impact causing the comet to be of any threat to earth (or any other planet for that matter). As Deep Impact Principal Investigator Mike A'Hearn put it, (and this is paraphrase), it would be like a pebble hitting a semi travelling at 100 mph. Take a good look at the website, http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov. There's a ton of material over there, a lot of it having to do with the questions you raised. This is a great mission, promising to return even more science about comets and what they tell us about the origins of our universe than any mission has thus far. Keep your eyes to the sky on July 4 2005...
...another dime out of my pocket or another second of my time. After AI and that ball of crap Minority Report, I'm through with good old S.S.
OK, this is the last post I'll make on this; if I had any semblance of a life I would have quit a long time ago.
The failure of the Ariane 5 10-tonne on Nov 28 was NOT due to conditions beyond the control of the mission operators. When the shuttle doesn't take off because of weather, the controllers make a decision and say "OK, it's not safe, we're no go". What happened with the A5 was nothing like that. If you equate a room full of people waiting for a rocket to lift off and then scratching their heads when it's T+5sec and the rocket is still on the ground with a mission controller calling off a launch and everyone going home then I really do understand why you keep posting as Anonymous Coward since you have no idea what you're talking about.
BTW, do you even know the story behind the original Ariane 5 failure? I am guessing not.
That WAS a failure. The controllers didn't abort that launch - it was initiated by the on-board software. As far as I'm concerned, that's a failure. It didn't launch..smells like a failure to me.
Take another read over my post. That's exactly what I was saying - there are successes ALL THE TIME but when there are multiple high-publicity failures such as this no one seems to remember this. And I'm not sure where you got the idea I was saying it was easy. Losing missions is a way of life in the space business, but no on the outside seems to realize that.
And trust me, all of my space information comes from people who I converse with on a daily basis - not the phreaks on slash who think they can build a rocket in their backyard.
...the current state of the space business. In the last 4 months, there have been no less than five (5) disatrous blows.
s -even-though-we-realize-that-no-space-program-will -have-100%-success' attitude. And we end up forgetting all the good which we get out of it: the amazing data we're getting from Galileo (still!) and Mars Odyssey; all the good stuff left to come, like Deep Impact and the two new Mars Rovers (which will hopefully take off as scheduled, but I have my doubts. Weekly checks of the status reports on the Athena Instruments site are not too promising).
- Loss of CONTOUR
- Russia's pullback from ISS
- TWO new Ariane5 failures only weeks apart
- Loss of Astra-1K
And it's not that it makes me think the technology isn't there - it is. I know it is; I've seen it firsthand. But the PR mess that it creates is the worst part, especially since we are in the midst of the 'give-no-money-to-space-since-they-lose-satellite
But I suppose that I am rambling. It makes me angry and sad at the same time, since I have a sinking feeling that the reasons behind the current Ariane failure will be all too similar to the reasons for the failure of the initial Ariane 5. I just hope that in the near, the VERY near future we can have a string of spectacularly successful missions so that people (i.e. congress and the dudes withh $$$) realize that these are dollars well spent.
Yea just as I figured. Let's all take my comments out of context. If your kid is 8, unless he comes and says to you "Daddy, I want to know the joys of free software", LET IT SLIDE. Geez. And I AM AWARE that some people find it "fun" (although I don't think that's the right word - stimulating is better) be realistic. Pretty soon Spock and Bradshaw will be replaced by O'Reilly and Wrox - and I don't want to live in that world.
...and not forcing them to be overwhleming nerds like we are. There's plenty of time in life for that, but not enough time to play and have fun.
Here's the straight dope: The vendor actually CHANGED the specs in the middle of the project (from one unit system to another - I don't remember the order) and this information was not trickled down the chain. So it was purely a communication error (unexcusable nontheless, but I do not blame the guy who wrote the code).
Also, the Ariane 5 disaster was a result of improper code reuse - this is true. Be sure to check out my post earlier (titled "There are some really amazing things going on...") that deals with some of the techniques currently being investigated/employed to solve reuse errors just like that (and this is precisely the pitfall of OOA/D - it really DOESN'T aide in reuse all that much).
Just my thoughts...except for the Mars stuff. That's 100% true.
Sure. I'll also recommend some books which are on the cutting edge of what's going on in these areas. By far the definitive guide is "Generative Programming" by Czarnecki and Eisenecker. They delve into Domain Engineering, Aspect Oriented Programming, Intentional Programming (being developed by Simonyi @ MS), and other topics in general programming. The book is great, and you can check out Czarnecki's website associated with it which includes source code and links to other online resources. Other literature currently close to my heart is "Modern C++ Design" by Alexandrescu, which deals with Policy Based library design (closely related to the idea of generative programming; it allows C++ to act as a 2-tiered language by giving the compiler the ability to make decisions on what should be compiled), and anything that you can find on the Eiffel programming language (I suggest The Official Eiffel Software Homepage) which implements Design by Contract (DBC). Basically this states that there are certain pre- and post- conditions which must be met by each part of your program and places constraints on the code based on the 'contracts'. As a side note, this can currently be spoofed in C++ by using the static assertion library. Wow, that was long-winded. In any case, hope that helps. If you want more info, drop another post.
...and I'm surprised no one mentions it too often. Things like generative programming, aspect oriented programming, domain engineering, the list goes on. They are all headed towards filling in the gaps where OOA/D falls short (and yes, it DOES fall short. WAY short) and creating flexible, general programs that are highly reusable and highly correct with a minimum of change. It's really great stuff, straight out of Star Trek. And if you think it's just theory, it's not. Do some research and find out that big (and I mean BIG) companies are going this way.
...listening to the EFF might be a bad idea. Did anyone ever take a moment to think that it just might be ok not to listen to these morons? Uh-oh, now I'll probably be kicked off /. for life for saying that. Oooh!