3 ms·

Wikipedia's article on Dijkstra says: "He was the first to make the claim that programming is so inherently complex that (...)" Meanwhile Alan Kay had 12 year

Wikipedia's article on Dijkstra says: "He was the first to make the claim that programming is so inherently complex that (...)" Meanwhile Alan Kay had 12 year old kids making computer games (videos on Web Archive). Dijkstra contributed algorithms. In that sense he contributed as a mathematician. That doesn't diminish what he did. But it does not compare with what Alan Kay did for the sum of these two parts: computers, and people.

tincholio 11y ago
Programming is not all of CS, and the fact that everyone and their mom are doing OO does not take away from anything of what Dijkstra said. On a more "people" level, I think that arguing for more rigor and formal approaches to programming is truly more important that creating the next generation of code monkeys. I agree that Kay's work has had much more practical influence, but I don't think it has been necessarily any better because of that. But as I said in the original comment, I'm probably in the minority on this.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
lectrick 11y ago
Kay : Dijkstra :: Ruby : Haskell Dijkstra was correct in saying that you don't even need a computer to do "Computer Science," all you need is a pencil, paper, and a mental model of what you're trying to do given computer constraints. Dijkstra more theoretical; Kay more hands-on. I think BOTH are necessary, or at least important.
- tincholio 11y ago
  I think that's a pretty good analogy, though maybe you should s/ruby/objective-c/ to bring it closer to smalltalk :)
- innguest 11y ago
  There is theoretical, and then there is theoretical: one is privately fueled and produces real-world industry-strong gems like Haskell; the other is publicly fueled and produces concepts such as self-stabilization and superstabilization. If Dijkstra is so awesome someone should write a Wikipedia article with more important achievements and less medals.
  - tincholio 11y ago
    I don't really understand what you mean by privately or publicly-fueled theory, but anyway... Instead of waiting for someone to write on the wiki, you could go out there and google a bit. Very briefly: he made major contributions to compiler and OS design (including the first Algol compiler and a whole OS, the THE OS), devised two fundamental graph algorithms (shortest path and spanning tree), and spearheaded making programming into a serious discipline rooted in maths (along the way pretty much giving birth to structured programming). He also wrote (longhand!) over a thousand essays on CS and related topics, which are (as far as I've read, and I've read quite a few) all a joy to read. You can start here: http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm and here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/

tincholio 11y ago

Programming is not all of CS, and the fact that everyone and their mom are doing OO does not take away from anything of what Dijkstra said. On a more "people" level, I think that arguing for more rigor and formal approaches to programming is truly more important that creating the next generation of code monkeys. I agree that Kay's work has had much more practical influence, but I don't think it has been necessarily any better because of that. But as I said in the original comment, I'm probably in the minority on this.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

lectrick 11y ago

Kay : Dijkstra :: Ruby : Haskell Dijkstra was correct in saying that you don't even need a computer to do "Computer Science," all you need is a pencil, paper, and a mental model of what you're trying to do given computer constraints. Dijkstra more theoretical; Kay more hands-on. I think BOTH are necessary, or at least important.

tincholio 11y ago
I think that's a pretty good analogy, though maybe you should s/ruby/objective-c/ to bring it closer to smalltalk :)
innguest 11y ago
There is theoretical, and then there is theoretical: one is privately fueled and produces real-world industry-strong gems like Haskell; the other is publicly fueled and produces concepts such as self-stabilization and superstabilization. If Dijkstra is so awesome someone should write a Wikipedia article with more important achievements and less medals.
- tincholio 11y ago
  I don't really understand what you mean by privately or publicly-fueled theory, but anyway... Instead of waiting for someone to write on the wiki, you could go out there and google a bit. Very briefly: he made major contributions to compiler and OS design (including the first Algol compiler and a whole OS, the THE OS), devised two fundamental graph algorithms (shortest path and spanning tree), and spearheaded making programming into a serious discipline rooted in maths (along the way pretty much giving birth to structured programming). He also wrote (longhand!) over a thousand essays on CS and related topics, which are (as far as I've read, and I've read quite a few) all a joy to read. You can start here: http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/dijkstra_1053701.cfm and here: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/