Month: January 2008

This is for the geeks amongst us, although most people will probably appreciate this.

This was first published in 1982 in InfoWorld and is attributed to John Unger Zussman and later published in the November 2, 1984 edition of the University of Waterloo‘s mathNEWS. I was given a photostat copy in the mid 80s and used it in a computer magazine I was editing at the time. It has since become quite widespread on the internet under the title “Lesser known computer languages”, probably because most computer guys cannot spell gazetteer. Read and enjoy…

 

SIMPLE

‘Simple’ is an acronym for Sheer Idiot’s Programming Linguistic Environment. This language, developed at Hanover College for Technological Misfits, was designed to make it impossible to write code with errors in it. The statements are, therefore, confined to ‘begin’, ‘end’, and ‘stop’. No matter how you arrange the statements, you can’t make a syntax error.

Programs written in Simple do nothing useful. They thus achieve the results of programs written in other languages without the tedious, frustrating process of testing and debugging.

SLOBOL

Slobol is best known for the speed, or lack of it, of its compiler. Although many compilers allow you to take a coffee break while they compile, Slobol compilers allow you to travel to Bolivia to pick the coffee.

Forty-three programmers are known to have died of boredom sitting at their terminals while waiting for a Slobol program to compile.

VALGOL

From its modest beginnings in Southern California‘s San Fernando Valley, Valgol is enjoying a dramatic surge in popularity across the industry. Valgol commands include ‘really’, ‘like’, ‘well’, and ‘y*know’. Variables are assigned with the ‘= like’ and ‘= totally’ operators. Other operators include the California Booleans, ‘fersure’ and ‘noway’. Repetitions of code are handled in ‘for/sure’ loops. Here is a sample Valgol program:

like y*know (I mean) start
if pizza = like bitchen and
b = like tubular and
c = like grodyax
then
for I = like 1 to oh maybe 100
do wah – (ditty)
barf(1 ) = totally gross (out)
sure
like bag this problem
really
like totally (y*know)

Valgol is characterized by its unfriendly error messages. For example, when the user makes a syntax error, the interpreter displays the message: gag me with a spoon

LITHP

This otherwise unremarkable language is distinguished by the absence of an ‘s’ in the character set. Programmers must substitute ‘th’. Lithp is said to be useful in proceththing lithtth.

LAIDBACK

Historically, Valgol is a derivative of Laidback, which was developed at the (now defunct) Marin County Center for T’ai Chi, Mellowness, and Computer Programming, as an alternative to the intense atmosphere in nearby Silicon Valley. The center was ideal for programmers who liked to soak in hot tubs while they worked. Unfortunately, few programmers could survive there for long, since the center outlawed pizza and RC Cola in favor of bean curd and Perrier. Many mourn the demise of Laidback because of its reputation as a gentle and non-threatening language. For example, Laidback responded to syntax errors with the message:

Sorry, man, I can’t deal behind that.

C-

This language was named for the grade received by its creator when he submitted it as a project in a university graduate programming class. C– is best described as a ‘low-level’ programming language. In general, the language requires more C– statements than machine code instructions to execute a given task. In this respect it is very similar to COBOL.

SARTRE

Named after the late existential philosopher, Sartre is an extremely unstructured language. Statements in Sartre have no purpose; they just are. Thus, Sartre programs are left to define their own functions. Sartre programmers tend to be boring and depressed and are no fun at parties.

DOGO

Developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Obedience Training, Dogo heralds a new era of computer-literate pets. Dogo commands include ‘sit’, ‘stay’, ‘heel’, and ‘roll over’. An innovative feature of Dogo is ‘puppy graphics’, a small cocker spaniel that occasionally leaves deposits as he travels across the screen.

Lingua Programmatica

As a programmer who has frequently been frustrated by the lack of flexibility of conventional high-level programming languages, I am pleased to report the recent completion of a new language that promises to leave Pascal and the others stumbling in its tailwind. The new language is called LATIN (not to be confused with the natural language, Latin, with which it is, however, identical).

LATIN offers such conveniences as Roman numeral mode (for those who are tired of trying to deal with clumsy Arabic numbers), output to marble, and a sophisticated user interface that features not just icons but also omens. The package includes complete error detection and punishment. Program execution is rapid; however, programmer execution is painfully slow. The carefully written documentation is hand-copied on papyrus scrolls by Egyptian slaves, and scans nicely. The language is provided on a sturdy double-sided discus, designed for years of troublefree use.

Availability of LATIN is something of a problem at present, as the compiler is written not in assembler but in an intermediate-level language called GREEK (G-Code), which has yet to be implemented on any microcomputer.

And this one by Karl Hildon . . .

NORTH

NORTH programs can only execute efficiently where snow falls at least 5 months of the year. This is because many NORTH programmers become sick and fed up with their environment and move on to SOUTH. Almost all NORTH programs are totally useless in the SOUTH environment.

NORTH programs are immediately recognizable by the “, eh ” suffix which seems to be necessary after every line. Although there are other slight differences, most NORTH programs can be translated to SOUTH by replacing the “, eh ” suffix with “, uh “.

Debugging NORTH programs is no probs. The “Gimme a break” command can be inserted to stop programs from taking off with goofs, and after an error, the “Check it out” command shows the offending botches.

The following is a demo program that comes with the NORTH interpreter:

10 hosers = 1, eh
20 buzz hoser, “what’s happenin’ man?”, eh
30 far out, eh: hosers = hosers + 1, eh
40 it hosers < beer/6 then 20, eh
50 if dough = 0 then cruise, eh: goto 50, eh
60 if donuts = 0 then cruise, eh
70 if beer < 24 then cruise, eh: beer = beer+24, eh
80 killer, eh
90 on stereo goto heavy metal, heavy metal, eh
100 while beer > 0, eh
110 beer = beer – hosers, eh
120 endwhile, eh
130 if munchies then do food, eh
140 if burnt out then crash, eh: else 70, eh

RENE

Named after the famous French philosopher and mathematician Rene DesCartes, RENE is a language used for artificial intelligence. The language is being developed at the Chicago Center of Machine Politics and Programming under a grant from the Jane Byrne Victory Fund. A spokesman described the language as “Just as great as dis [sic] city of ours.”

The center is very pleased with progress to date. They say they have almost succeeded in getting a VAX to think. However, sources inside the organization say that each time the machine fails to think it ceases to exist.

FIFTH

FIFTH is a precision mathematical language in which the data types refer to quantity. The data types range from CC, OUNCE, SHOT, and JIGGER to FIFTH (hence the name of the language), LITER, MAGNUM and BLOTTO. Commands refer to ingredients such as CHABLIS, CHARDONNAY, CABERNET, GIN, VERMOUTH, VODKA, SCOTCH, and WHATEVERSAROUND.
The many versions of the FIFTH language reflect the sophistication and financial status of its users. Commands in the ELITE dialect include VSOP and LAFITE, while commands in the GUTTER dialect include HOOTCH and RIPPLE. The latter is a favorite of frustrated FORTH programmers who end up using this language.

 

• More oganisation leads to greater efficiency

I once had a discussion with a colleague who was appointed to yet another process improvement workshop to look at a particularly inefficient installation procedure to try and make it more efficient. The discussion went something like this…

Me: What makes you thing that it will deliver a more efficient process?

Her: silence… “Well we are going to see how we can improve the delivery”

Me: I can tel you know exactly what the problems are and how to improve it

Her: silence

Me: Are there any people on the team that have the technical background to understand the technical complexities of the process

Her: silence … Erummmm … no

Me: How do you think that a team of non-technical people who do not have the background to understand the technical problems will deliver a more efficient process – given that the problems are highly technical in nature

Her: silence …. Erummmm …. well…

Me: In all your many years with the organisation and the many many process improvement teams you have been on has one delivered a more efficient process

Her: Long silence ….. Well no, not really

Me:What make you think this team will be any different

Her: You’re right

Me: I know

For reference, that conversation was about three years ago and as far as I know the exact same process is being used today.

I was listening to an academic and author several days ago being interviewed on the radio which leads me to the next myth.

• Untidy people spend an hour a day looking for things

In fact this is untrue and a myth perpetrated by the people who make an industry out of teaching people to be tidy. The truth is that both untidy and tidy people spend an average of 7 1/2 minutes looking for things. except for obsessively tidy people who spend an hour a day searching for things.

He also discovered that the average tidy person spends between 1 and 4 hours tidying their house, and the only difference it makes it to make them feel better.

Now you may say that the above two myths are more or less the same and you would of course be correct. There is a huge industry in corporate process improvement and personal organisation.

The only people who believe that process improvement and organisational efficiency improvements lead to more efficient organisations are the people who sell these programs and the managers who have no idea how their organisation really works anyway. The only thing I have seen these programs do is to extend delivery times, increase costs, and generally stop me from doing my job.

One of the most effective mechanisms for getting things done in an organisation is to use what are called informal networks. These are networks of contacts outside the formalised processes and are far more efficient ways of getting things done than the formal processes. Anybody that has worked in a large organisation is familiar with the concept of informal networks. The problem being that the process improvement and organisational restructure gurus would have us eliminate these informal networks. This suits middle management because it means that it gives them the illusion that they have more control over their organisation. In fact what this does is reduces efficiency and increases costs.

If you want an efficient organisation sure have your formal processes but make them simple by reducing the number of boxes. It seems to me that the more boxes in a flow chart the happier the middle management. The truth is that the less boxes in a flow chart the faster a process is. The aim of a process improvement should be to reduce the munber of boxes in the flow chart – not to formalise every minute step. Also allow organic informal networks to develop. These are self regulating and lead to huge increases in efficiency. They look untidy but actually behave like neural networks and can deliver huge cost savings.

On the domestic front – get over this obsessive desire to be tidy. Sure make sure your house is clean but don’t waste your time and energy obsessing over the state of your house. No one cares except for you.

There are a lot of commonly held beliefs that have no foundation in fact. Many of these are held to be true even though they are now proven to be quite untrue. I will try to shatter some of these myths below.

• We only use 10% of our brain.

This is false on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. This was first stated just over 100 years ago and has been promulgated from generation to generation and is absolutely false. We use all of our brain and as modern science will tell you the brain is a complex and diverse beast with each area looking after quite unique functions. When even the smallest pert of the brain is damaged it effects our cognitive function. The brain is extremely adaptable in that the brain can utilise other parts to perform the function of the damaged part, as long as the injury is not too severe. In any case we actually use 100% of our brain.

• Prohibition does not work

The oft quoted example is the prohibition on the sale of alcoholic beverages in the US in the 20s and 30s. The interesting thing about this example is that it actually achieved what it set out to do. In the early part of the 20th C in the US alcoholism was an extremely serious social issue. The common belief was that wowsers got the ear of government, but this is far from the truth. There was a runaway increase in the rate of consumption of alcohol and it was of a major concern to society. The fact that there was a constitutional amendment illustrates the perceived severity of the problem.

Studies have shown that the consumption of alcohol decreased dramatically during prohibition and that the common belief that all of the legal drinking houses went underground is not supported by the facts. Even after prohibition was repealed the rate of consumption per capita did not reach anywhere near the level it was before prohibition. In fact as of the early 90s the rate of consumption was still well below pre-prohibition rates. This is not to say that there were other serious issues that occurred either directly or indirectly as a result but we can say that this does prove that prohibition works.

• Private industry does things more efficiently.

You will find that the proponents of this theory is private industry. I have worked in the public and private sector and can say that in my experience that this is not true. People will rort the system if they can despite best efforts. In any case private industry’s primary motivation is profit so that it will necessarily increase the cost if only because they want to return money to the shareholders. I am not saying that we need to repeat the post war privitisiation blitz but that we should not privatise merely because we believe it will lead to increased efficiency.

• Universal health care results in spiraling costs due to over servicing.

I will tell you one of the causes of spiraling costs. Oversubscribing of drugs. There is a huge industry that depends on the over subscription of drugs. I recently read a report that stated that statins (used for reduction of cholesterol) should be given to all diabetics over the age of 50. I was horrified. The side effect – which are very common – can be horrendous, despite the increasing evidence that they actually do not decrease the risk of coronary disease. In fact it is probably that the only people to benefit from this are the drug companies.

Getting back to my original point, over servicing occurs whether you have universal health care or no. What needs to happen is that procedures have to be put in place to reduce the prevalence regardless of the system. In any case the slight rise in over servicing (which by the way is tiny compared to other rorts that are driving up the cost of health care) is an extremely small price to pay for the provision of health care to all ones citizens. One of the signs of a civilised society is that we take care of the needy and disadvantaged, and on that basis the richest country in the world could be regarded as one of the least civilised.

Conclusion

Critical thinking is the practice of looking at issues and beliefs from all sides and analysing those issues in a critical way to determine the truth or otherwise of the claims. I often take the opposing point of view from my own and argue as if I was opposing myself. This sometimes leads to interesting results.

I recently had a lengthy email discussion with my son about GM foods and took the pro GM line in order to show him how critical thinking works – not because I necessarily support GM.

We need to always question what we are told, not just accept as face opinion – especially if it comes from someone we trust.

I received an email from someone in the US the other day and it was a list comparing Republicans and Democrats in what he thought was a funny way. I will not dwell on his sense of humour, which seems to consist of laughing at and ridiculing anyone who thinks differently to him.

The list (what is it with lists?) contained the following;

Republicans want to torture and then execute guilty terrorists at Guantanamo;
Democrats want to release them and provide compensation for their distress.

I quote this because it seems to represent a particular mentality of many right wing  Republican supporters in the US. They have no understanding of the issues involved with the injustices being promulgated by the US in the name of their so called “war on terror” and no desire to understand those issues. They assume that because they are there they must be terrorists.

What I find most interesting is that the mentality being demonstrated here is identical in every respect to that demonstrated by the people involved in the terrorists attacks.

The similarities are actually quite chilling

• Ultra right wing relio-political views that are xenephobic in nature
• Inability to submit to open rational debate
• Parochialism
• No desire to submit the accused to proper systems of justice
• Blind adherence to the views of their political masters
•  Engaging in illegal acts and justifying this on the basis of their desired end
• A desire to convert the world to their relio-political system by force if necessary

People with some perspective on world affairs and who can see beyond the end of their nose would probably find this amusing if it was not for the gross injustices being perpetrated by these people.