3 ms·

I think of him more as the Truman Capote of computer science. Backus' characterization of one particular EWD as "bitchy" is right on the money.

Jtsummers 3y ago
Is it? Have you read his EWDs? They're quite interesting and he comes across as far more humble than many people seem to imagine him as. Blunt in his criticism, certainly, but not self-agrandizing or boastful.
- microtherion 3y ago
  Yes, I read numerous EWDs, starting roughly 40 years ago. Many of them are indeed interesting (even, or maybe particularly the gossipy parts). The problem is not that he self-aggrandizes or is boastful; it's that he keeps tearing other people down. And that he was very willing to offer sweeping pronouncements on matters that he had no practical experience in. He basically stopped touching computers in the early 1970s, and certainly stopped writing practical programs. What basis then, did he have for dismissing object oriented programming, which for all its flaws has done decidedly more for human progress than program verification has? And as the tense exchange with Backus shows, he was quick to dismiss the relevance of functional programming, which certainly has done a lot for the kind of mathematical reasoning he advocates for programming (Apparently he taught his students Haskell later. Did he ever apologize to Backus for his wrong headed initial assessment?). Would computer science miss ANYTHING relevant if he had stopped working in the field in 1975? His output basically consisted of proving propositions over cherry picked toy problems. I don't think anybody doubts that this is possible, but is this a viable approach to build real systems (not only large ones, but also ones whose requirements evolve over time)? I consider this, at best, highly unproven, and yet he advocates this as the sole approach to be taught in CS education. Knuth noted, correctly, that neither Dijkstra's education nor any of the practical systems he built (Algol compiler, etc) were based on this approach.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Jtsummers 3y ago

Is it? Have you read his EWDs? They're quite interesting and he comes across as far more humble than many people seem to imagine him as. Blunt in his criticism, certainly, but not self-agrandizing or boastful.

microtherion 3y ago
Yes, I read numerous EWDs, starting roughly 40 years ago. Many of them are indeed interesting (even, or maybe particularly the gossipy parts). The problem is not that he self-aggrandizes or is boastful; it's that he keeps tearing other people down. And that he was very willing to offer sweeping pronouncements on matters that he had no practical experience in. He basically stopped touching computers in the early 1970s, and certainly stopped writing practical programs. What basis then, did he have for dismissing object oriented programming, which for all its flaws has done decidedly more for human progress than program verification has? And as the tense exchange with Backus shows, he was quick to dismiss the relevance of functional programming, which certainly has done a lot for the kind of mathematical reasoning he advocates for programming (Apparently he taught his students Haskell later. Did he ever apologize to Backus for his wrong headed initial assessment?). Would computer science miss ANYTHING relevant if he had stopped working in the field in 1975? His output basically consisted of proving propositions over cherry picked toy problems. I don't think anybody doubts that this is possible, but is this a viable approach to build real systems (not only large ones, but also ones whose requirements evolve over time)? I consider this, at best, highly unproven, and yet he advocates this as the sole approach to be taught in CS education. Knuth noted, correctly, that neither Dijkstra's education nor any of the practical systems he built (Algol compiler, etc) were based on this approach.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]