Ada vs Ruby

[Mike Silva]

....Having said that, it seems to me that the better correctness of programs in
SPARK or Ada compared to C/C++, say, would also be due to the qualities of
organizations that tend to use/adopt these languages.....

I think there's a lot to be said for this. Organizations that choose
bad tools when better tools are available show that at some level they
are not properly serious, and/or not properly informed (which points
again to not being properly serious).

Mike

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:
| On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Phillip Gawlowski
|
|> After all, any consistent system should be provable, but isn't. But if
|> it isn't provable, it isn't consistent, but yet it is.
| No Gödel is not talking about consistent systems, he has only (that is
| a strange adjective in this context, but you know how I mean it)
| proven that all *complete* systems are inconsistent.

Even so, it is still a paradox.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

~ "I suppose the secret to happiness is learning to appreciate the
moment."
- -Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgH4EEACgkQbtAgaoJTgL98QACfW/gPvcbiaX2q4Oqhq+NZ7Ykk
/YkAn0PhGRAU4chgL7nwL6mV3qUQV5Ea
=0fAF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Tom Cloyd]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rick DeNatale wrote:

|
| Yes, testing, not a blind faith in whatever language is being used,
| and it's compiler.

Indeed.

|> Anyway, this problem is (AFAIK, anyway), countered by using redundant
|> implementations of the hardware and software (well, as far as
possible,
|> anyway), to minimize the effect of unknown states.
|
| Of course this isn't perfect either. In fact "The Bug Heard Round the
| World." which I mentioned earlier in this thread, was a failure of
| redundancy.

Perfection is an ideal, that we can only approach asymptotically, never
achieve (since we, as human beings, aren't perfect).

| Of course all of this worked well during the pre-STS1 mission sims.
|
| However, on the day of the launch, there was a clock skew between the
| redundant computers, so the output from one lagged just a bit behind
| the others, and the system halted the launch, unnecessarily as it
| turned out, at T-3
|

That is it was an unnecessary halt is probably the benefit of hindsight.
Unfortunately, I can only assume that it was so, since I cannot find a
free version of the paper you linked to earlier.

Without the benefit of hindsight, the problem of the skewed clocks could
have a much wider impact than it actually had, masking deeper problems
of the software and / or hardware used.

In such a case, we enter the area of risk management: Is it worth to
risk the whole mission on something that hasn't been done before at this
scale? While there was knowledge, at the time, of space flight thanks to
the Apollo and Mercury programs, something like the Space Shuttle was
new, and very different from the "throw away" capsules used before, with
different approaches to solve the problem of getting something into
orbit and back again, preferably all in one piece.

With the lives and money at stake with the Shuttle program, the decision
to cancel was wise, IMO, even though it turned out to be unnecessary.

One could even claim, that the systems performed as planned, and
prevented a catastrophe. Without actual empirical testing we probably
won't know for sure, and can only speculate.


In the end, though, this shows that no amount of software nor hardware
can replace judgment calls made by human beings. Technology can only
assist in making decisions. And in the cases where humans cannot make
decisions (like a Shuttle launch, where automation has to be used), a
use of technology (and not just languages and compilers and processes)
still requires humans for the get go.

I think that the movie Wargames touched on this topic in a good, and
decent, way, as well as Crimson Tide (in a not very related way, though,
but it demonstrates my point of not putting too much trust into process).

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

"...no amount of software nor hardware can replace judgment calls made
by human beings. Technology can only
assist in making decisions."

For what it's worth, in my profession (clinical applied psychology/
psychotherapy), it's written into our professional ethics that decisions
are always to be made by people, not by some testing device, instrument,
or technology. Sometimes we merely review and approve, but that human is
required to be there. Very few people object to this, especially after a
little reflection.

Cross-validation of process, eh?

t.


--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC
Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< (e-mail address removed) >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website & psychotherapy weblog)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
<< directpathdesign.com >> (web site design & consultation)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Tom Cloyd]

That's the new physics for you


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net

Well, yes. And it's also classical Zen Buddhism - we kill the Buddha we
meet on the road to avoid being distracted from the road. All
idealizations and representations fail, and we must endeavor not to be
taken in. When formalisms are complete enough not to fail, they become
clones - copies, not representations. Psychologically, this is why
thinking too much betrays the thinker. The dialectic between
representation (formalism) and reality is ongoing and unavoidable, if
one wishes to minimize crashes of all sorts.

What utterly fascinates me is that this clearly seems to be true in
cockpits AND people's love lives. That makes it a very good truth
indeed. My earlier expressed appreciation derives precisely from my
delight at seeing the same truth I know well in my home environment
emerging here in a very different (for me) environment. "Delight" is the
precisely correct description of my reaction to seeing this, although it
does not well represent the reality of that reaction. (!)

t.

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tom Cloyd, MS MA, LMHC
Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< (e-mail address removed) >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website & psychotherapy weblog)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health issues weblog)
<< directpathdesign.com >> (web site design & consultation)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Cloyd wrote:

| For what it's worth, in my profession (clinical applied psychology/
| psychotherapy), it's written into our professional ethics that decisions
| are always to be made by people, not by some testing device, instrument,
| or technology. Sometimes we merely review and approve, but that human is
| required to be there. Very few people object to this, especially after a
| little reflection.

It is a sad state of affairs, if this has to be written down and people
have to think about this, before it makes sense to them.

This reminds me of the late Joseph Weizenbaum's shock he felt, when
people accepted ELIZA as more than a toy, which led to his seminal work
"Computer Power and Human Reason"[0], arguing my case better than I ever
could.

This quote encompasses it, methinks:
"I want them [teachers of computer science] to have heard me affirm that
the computer is a powerful new metaphor for helping us understand many
aspects of the world, but that it enslaves the mind that has no other
metaphors and few other resources to call on. The world is many things,
and no single framework is large enough to contain them all, neither
that of man's science nor of his poetry, neither that of calculating
reason nor that of pure intuition."[1]

It is sad that we, as human beings, so eagerly submit ourselves to the
seeming rule of computers (SkyNET and its counterparts in
science-fiction, anyone?).

| Cross-validation of process, eh?

Yes, indeed.



[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Power_and_Human_Reason
[1] http://www.smeed.org/1735

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Use the good features of a language; avoid the bad ones.
~ - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgIMz0ACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+3TwCgh7PiK5Iu16yACUBGujoJ+Lgp
ecMAn0mU6dxJLYNKrY4Vp7MDx/9nz4Ci
=3gHq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Tom Cloyd wrote:

| Well, yes. And it's also classical Zen Buddhism - we kill the Buddha we
| meet on the road to avoid being distracted from the road. All
| idealizations and representations fail, and we must endeavor not to be
| taken in. When formalisms are complete enough not to fail, they become
| clones - copies, not representations. Psychologically, this is why
| thinking too much betrays the thinker. The dialectic between
| representation (formalism) and reality is ongoing and unavoidable, if
| one wishes to minimize crashes of all sorts.

Or, on a wider scale, the difference and conflict between perception,
perception of self, and reality (which can be objective, or not), in all
its forms.

After all, every thing we create reflects our self, on one level or
another, be these things physical or not.

I think Plato's Allegory of the Cave applies, too.

"The things which we perceive as real are actually just shadows on a
wall. Just as the escaped prisoner ascends into the light of the sun, we
amass knowledge and ascend into the light of true reality: where ideas
in our minds can help us understand the form of 'The Good'." [0]

| What utterly fascinates me is that this clearly seems to be true in
| cockpits AND people's love lives. That makes it a very good truth
| indeed. My earlier expressed appreciation derives precisely from my
| delight at seeing the same truth I know well in my home environment
| emerging here in a very different (for me) environment. "Delight" is the
| precisely correct description of my reaction to seeing this, although it
| does not well represent the reality of that reaction. (!)

Well, it is not all that surprising, considering that humans are
involved in all of this.

I share the delight, in a way, from my philosophical background, myself.


[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

P.S.: My random quote add on for Thunderbird worries me in its
randomness, producing quotes that somehow relate to the email I'm going
to write..

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Zen: the sound of the ax chopping. Chopping logic.
~ -- Edward Abbey
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgINRgACgkQbtAgaoJTgL8xUACeJYr3ZBTf2EPZVfnuvxq8j90O
i8YAn1d+h0yion6otHUmM9Ku2kKEMxox
=D1oT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Robert Dober]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This quote encompasses it, methinks:
"I want them [teachers of computer science] to have heard me affirm that
the computer is a powerful new metaphor for helping us understand many
aspects of the world, but that it enslaves the mind that has no other
metaphors and few other resources to call on. The world is many things,
and no single framework is large enough to contain them all, neither
that of man's science nor of his poetry, neither that of calculating
reason nor that of pure intuition."[1]

That pretty much is why I find G=F6del's theorem all save paradoxical.
It showed me, fortunately I was young enough to fully except it as a
truth, that formalism cannot do anything (as does the halting
problem). Without these knowings I might as well still think the
contrary, which would indeed reduce my own awareness of the greater
picture.

Now not to become too serious, I deduce from G=F6del's theorem that if a
human being would fully understand the nature of the human brain at
least one of the following things would happen
(1) 42 becomes nil
(2) Life, the universe and evertyhing would vanish immediately.
(42) All of Doug Adam's works will be put on the index.
(SSSSSSSSSS0) I will try to find the error in G=F6del's proof.

Cheers
Robert
<snip>

--=20
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

 

[Sylvain COURTECUISSE]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

unsubscribe


**************************
Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire designe de ce message ou une personne autorisee a l'utiliser, toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage a quelques fins que ce soit des informations dans ce message sont interdits. Merci d'informer immediatement l'expediteur par messagerie, et, de detruire ce message.
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the addressee or an authorized recipient of this message, any distribution, copying, publication or use of this information for any purpose is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and then delete this message.
**************************

 

[Robert Dober]

unsubscribe


**************************
Si vous n'etes pas le destinataire designe de ce message ou une personne autorisee a l'utiliser, toute distribution, copie, publication ou usage a quelques fins que ce soit des informations dans ce message sont interdits. Merci d'informer immediatement l'expediteur par messagerie, et, de detruire ce message.
This e-mail is confidential. If you are not the addressee or an authorized recipient of this message, any distribution, copying, publication or use of this information for any purpose is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and then delete this message.
**************************

LOL we will not tell anybody that you tried - unsucessfully BTW - to
unsubscribe from this group (which indeed is a shame
But please try to send this to the administration address of this mailing list.

HTH
Robert

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:

| That pretty much is why I find Gödel's theorem all save paradoxical.
| It showed me, fortunately I was young enough to fully except it as a
| truth, that formalism cannot do anything (as does the halting
| problem). Without these knowings I might as well still think the
| contrary, which would indeed reduce my own awareness of the greater
| picture.

We humans are neither consistent, nor logical, though. We are still
guided by imperatives that we have little control over, for example
(fear, lust, greed, envy, gluttony..). We can control them, but only if
we a) are aware of them, and b) have the intellect (Freud's super-ego)
to keep them in check.

Not to mention that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to abstract
concepts more than human nature. Machines and abstract systems are in
conflict with human nature, necessitating process for interaction (from
social rules, ethics [distinct from morals, which are more on a
meta-level], software development methodologies, what have you) in a
meaningful and consistent terms.

The game of Chinese whispers (Stille Post in Germany) demonstrates this
quite efficiently, as well as the Mythical Man-Month: Adding people to a
late project makes it later, since communication increases to the square
of the team size).

Alas, process has the problem of creating friction and stifles
creativity, if taken to the extreme. The balance has to be found between
human nature and process, and this is a constant struggle.

Too much process stifles creativity and the wellbeing of those
participating in the process, and no process endangers the success of
the task at hand (whatever that task may be).

| Now not to become too serious, I deduce from Gödel's theorem that if a
| human being would fully understand the nature of the human brain at
| least one of the following things would happen
| (1) 42 becomes nil
| (2) Life, the universe and evertyhing would vanish immediately.
| (42) All of Doug Adam's works will be put on the index.
| (SSSSSSSSSS0) I will try to find the error in Gödel's proof.

Which are probable events, just not likely.


- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Don't sacrifice clarity for small gains in "efficiency".
~ - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plaugher)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgIUKwACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+FsQCfeXdwBkTknOD8SRuFTF5Euwjn
8A8An3F51NfuPkYJBx/iXkX36RHLPsjI
=BVdM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Robert Dober]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:

| That pretty much is why I find G=F6del's theorem all save paradoxical.
| It showed me, fortunately I was young enough to fully except it as a
| truth, that formalism cannot do anything (as does the halting
| problem). Without these knowings I might as well still think the
| contrary, which would indeed reduce my own awareness of the greater
| picture.

We humans are neither consistent, nor logical, though. We are still
guided by imperatives that we have little control over, for example
(fear, lust, greed, envy, gluttony..). We can control them, but only if
we a) are aware of them, and b) have the intellect (Freud's super-ego)
to keep them in check.

Not to mention that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to abstract
concepts more than human nature. Machines and abstract systems are in
conflict with human nature, necessitating process for interaction (from
social rules, ethics [distinct from morals, which are more on a
meta-level], software development methodologies, what have you) in a
meaningful and consistent terms.

The game of Chinese whispers (Stille Post in Germany) demonstrates this
quite efficiently, as well as the Mythical Man-Month: Adding people to a
late project makes it later, since communication increases to the square
of the team size).

Alas, process has the problem of creating friction and stifles
creativity, if taken to the extreme. The balance has to be found between
human nature and process, and this is a constant struggle.

Too much process stifles creativity and the wellbeing of those
participating in the process, and no process endangers the success of
the task at hand (whatever that task may be).

I completely agree with you on this, but the interesting thing is that
G=F6del's theorem is just such a realistic one in a real world far away
from the abstractions of an ideal world, because it showed that even
the abstract, logical world was not ideal as soon
as something got complex enough to be "interesting". That is why his
theorem was that much contested I suppose.
When you say paradox, do you as a matter of fact contest the theorem?
Maybe this is simply my wrong interpretation of the term?

| Now not to become too serious, I deduce from G=F6del's theorem that if= a
| human being would fully understand the nature of the human brain at
| least one of the following things would happen
| (1) 42 becomes nil
| (2) Life, the universe and evertyhing would vanish immediately.
| (42) All of Doug Adam's works will be put on the index.
| (SSSSSSSSSS0) I will try to find the error in G=F6del's proof.

Which are probable events, just not likely.

Well I am glad you like my humor
Cheers
Robert


--=20
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:

| I completely agree with you on this, but the interesting thing is that
| Gödel's theorem is just such a realistic one in a real world far away
| from the abstractions of an ideal world, because it showed that even
| the abstract, logical world was not ideal as soon
| as something got complex enough to be "interesting". That is why his
| theorem was that much contested I suppose.
| When you say paradox, do you as a matter of fact contest the theorem?
| Maybe this is simply my wrong interpretation of the term?

Oh, I don't contest its existence, far from it.

Look at this definition of paradox:

"a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but
in reality expresses a possible truth."[0]

I merely state, that Godel's Incompleteness Paradox would be closer to
the truth of Godel's assertion, than the term theorem can transport.


[0] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

~ "That's the problem with nature, something's always stinging you
~ or oozing mucous all over you. Let's go and watch TV."
~ --- Calvin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgIY9gACgkQbtAgaoJTgL9ogQCgnZydTBkFGeVMbafAB0ie5kN4
PLsAoJwDTgPSwPFiJEYw/L3l2nu0pLXf
=LoQ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Robert Dober]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:

Look at this definition of paradox:

"a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but
in reality expresses a possible truth."[0]

I merely state, that Godel's Incompleteness Paradox would be closer to
the truth of Godel's assertion, than the term theorem can transport.

ok, if I were a Romulan I would say that this is acceptable
Really enjoyed the discussion.

Cheers
Robert

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Dober wrote:

| ok, if I were a Romulan I would say that this is acceptable
| Really enjoyed the discussion.

So do I.

A nice exchange, and so very polite, too.

- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan

Rule of Open-Source Programming #4:

If you don't work on your project, chances are that no one will.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkgIc2sACgkQbtAgaoJTgL//AwCfTx/c2VXgq2sLmFTE+UCF0OUc
3HgAn32lAiacZvT+6UHzZKrmjBrE/dtt
=2E12
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Rick DeNatale]

LOL we will not tell anybody that you tried - unsucessfully BTW - to
unsubscribe from this group (which indeed is a shame
But please try to send this to the administration address of this mailing list.

I'm surprised that some one from Descarte's homeland would be leaving
a conversation which has taken such a philosophical turn! <G>

Maybe we should discuss whether we are actually addressees or
authorized recipients of the message. I get the slight scent of one of
Hofstadter's "Strange Loops" here. <G>

 

[M. Edward (Ed) Borasky]

Maybe we should discuss whether we are actually addressees or
authorized recipients of the message. I get the slight scent of one of
Hofstadter's "Strange Loops" here. <G>

Speaking of Ada ...

http://www.gcn.com/print/27_8/46116-1.html

 

[Guest]

....Having said that, it seems to me that the better correctness of programs
in
SPARK or Ada compared to C/C++, say, would also be due to the qualities of
organizations that tend to use/adopt these languages.....

MS>>I think there's a lot to be said for this. Organizations that choose
MS>>bad tools when better tools are available show that at some level they
MS>>are not properly serious, and/or not properly informed (which points
MS>>again to not being properly serious).

I have often wondered why someone would choose an error-prone language
such as C++ and expect an error-free result. More recently, I have been
looking
more closely at Java and have learned that it too is far more error-prone than
one might expect.

As to Ada. Some have touted Ada's type-safety as an important feature of the
language. This is certainly one important feature. There are others that are
not
as immediately obvious -- features not found in most other languages -- that
contribute to the better engineering model provided by Ada. Although many
Ada programmers do not understand Chapter Eight of the Ada Language
Reference Manual, the visibility model of the language is, when understood
and used as part of a software design, a powerful part of what makes Ada
so robust for safety-critical software. The architectural model of an Ada
program also lends itself to the design of well-formed, easy-to-read, and
scalable software. That is, as programs become larger, as they tend to do
in real software, Ada tends to scale-up a little better than most other
languages.

Ada is not the right language for small, toy programs, but it begins to show its
power for programs in the 100 KSLOC range or higher. We have Ada software
in the million SLOC range and higher. In those kinds of systems, Ada really
outshines most competing languages. This is, in part, due to its
architectural
constructs: the package model, the separate compilation model, the child
library unit model, and the way both inheritance and genericity are designed
into the language.

Richard Riehle

 

[Robert Dober]

Ada is not the right language for small, toy programs, but it begins to show its
power for programs in the 100 KSLOC range or higher. We have Ada software
in the million SLOC range and higher. In those kinds of systems, Ada really
outshines most competing languages. This is, in part, due to its
architectural
constructs: the package model, the separate compilation model, the child
library unit model, and the way both inheritance and genericity are designed
into the language.

May I humbly add the Rendez Vous tasking model, of course chosen by a
Frenchman .
Robert

 

[Guest]

RD> May I humbly add the Rendez Vous tasking model, of course chosen by a
RD> Frenchman .
RD> Robert

You may so add. In its earliest versions, that model did have some problems.
With Ada 95 and Ada 2000, that model has improved greatly and is now one
of the best you can find.

Be aware, though, that Jean Ichbiah did not invent that model "from scratch."
Important contributions from Dijkstra, Hoare, Per-Brinch Hansen, and many
others preceded and informed it. It is not a purely French invention.

Richard Riehle

 

[Robert Dober]

RD> May I humbly add the Rendez Vous tasking model, of course chosen by a
RD> Frenchman .
RD> Robert

You may so add. In its earliest versions, that model did have some problems.
With Ada 95 and Ada 2000, that model has improved greatly and is now one
of the best you can find.

Be aware, though, that Jean Ichbiah did not invent that model "from scratch."
Important contributions from Dijkstra, Hoare, Per-Brinch Hansen, and many
others preceded and informed it. It is not a purely French invention.

Thank you for this update, I was not aware of the initial problems
BTW. I did not however want to indicate that Jean had invented this
model, I did not think so, I just thought he chose it because of the
French name, and that as a joke of course.
But he still refined the model himself if I understand you correctly,
interesting indeed.

Robert
http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/