|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Comments Remarks 0. I would like to notice that the statements of the discussion participants have a common kernel. But they also contain extensions in many different directions. 1. Prof. Bolliet's statement suggests an idea that a person is forced to adapt oneself to computers from his school days. As Prof. Shura-Bura noted, it is a sad but true fact. But this is the nature of not only our age. Computer is a part of the environment a human builds and has to adjust to during all the human history. From this point of view, our role, the role of true programmers, is to facilitate humanity in adjusting to the computer-including environment. 2. Automation of program verification mentioned by Prof. McCarthy is important. But the main difficulty lies not so much in proof of correctness as in formal specification of the expected program result - a thing we are going to verify. 3. Prof. Tihle was true noting that mathematical logic together with its various branches forms a theoretical basis of programming. But mathematical results usually make an impression on practice not directly but through a number of so-called precise and applied sciences. Programming and its theory is just a bridge between mathematical logic and the people who solve problems. Back |
|
| Switch to Russian | Search | Advanced search | Folders | Themes | |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
