Rationalilzations or Causes?

[Nick Thompson]

All,

While there may be an infinity of  RATIONALIZATIONS for sex, there are
probably relatively few CAUSES.  How many of you would actually take at
face value ANYONE'S account of why they wanted to have sex with you?  

 

Nick  

> [Original Message]
> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> Date: 8/6/2007 10:03:00 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam at redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> friam-request at redfish.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> friam-owner at redfish.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. The Verifier (Roger Critchlow)
>    2. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
>    3. Re: The Verifier (Prof David West)
>    4. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex] (Prof David West)
>    5. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Prof David West)
>    6. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
>       (Pamela McCorduck)
>    7. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Douglas Roberts)
>    8. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
>    9. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Russell Standish)
>   10. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Owen Densmore)
>   11. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Douglas Roberts)
>   12. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Russell Standish)
>   13. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>       (Prof David West)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:46:58 -0600
> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <Friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <66d1c98f0708050946s5661f94dw31d905b8d2e5cf1e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> biases among groups of researchers.
>
>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=busine
ss
>
> -- rec --
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/bc759113
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <001201c7d7ae$1d58f900$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common bias of
> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of entropy,
> seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>  
> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so many
> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> examination of the facts!
>  
> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the purpose,
> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers were
> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
>  
>  
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>
>
> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> biases among groups of researchers.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> siness
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> usiness>
>
> -- rec --
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/7f8b286c
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:40 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186355500.13653.1203862307 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
> Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and really
> written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement
> to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> said:
> > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> > to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common bias of
> > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> > the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> > the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of entropy,
> > seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >  
> > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> > networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> > network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> > of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> > and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> > final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> > by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> > Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> > being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> > of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> > discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> > and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so many
> > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> > then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> > the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> > examination of the facts!
> >  
> > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> > is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> > them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the purpose,
> > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> > exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers were
> > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> > built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040                      
> > tel: [phone]                
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> > biases among groups of researchers.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> > siness
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> > usiness>
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:25:20 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186356320.15204.1203862957 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers did
> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> group) who have sex as a:
>
> means to enlightenment
> a yogic discipline
> a way to experience unity with God
> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
>
> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting cultural
> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different set
> of reasons than those included in the survey.
>
> davew
>
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> > I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I had no
> > idea
> > there were 237 reasons.
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org
> > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> > > Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> > > From:   JerSol at aol.com
> > > To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> > > *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> > > By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> > > WebMD Medical News
> > > Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> > >
> > > /*
> > > *
> > > Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways

and
> > > comes up with 237 reasons.
> > > The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some motivations
> > > came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> > > The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> > > according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> > > Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> > > The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> > > psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> > > First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
to
> > > anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
women
> > > were taking psychology classes or were participating in other studies
at
> > > the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> > > All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> > > researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237 reasons.
> > > Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> > > and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
of

> > > the 237 reasons.
> > > /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> > > */
> > > The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> > > students' top reasons for having sex:
> > >      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> > >      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> > >      3.     Expressing love
> > >      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> > >      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> > >      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> > >      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> > >      8.     Mere opportunity
> > >      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> > > circumstances
> > >
> > >
> > > The study also highlights five general themes that were least

frequently
> > > cited by the students.
> > > Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> > > rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money, drugs,
> > > or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
seemingly
> > > unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
duty

> > > or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> > > */
> > > The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> > > sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> > > Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> > >      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > >      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > >      3.     It feels good.
> > >      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > >      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > >      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > >      7.     I was "horny."
> > >      8.     It's fun.
> > >      9.     I realized I was in love.
> > >      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> > >
> > >
> > > /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> > > */
> > > In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar to
> > > the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> > > according to the study:
> > >      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > >      2.     It feels good.
> > >      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > >      4.     It's fun.
> > >      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > >      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > >      7.     I was "horny."
> > >      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > >      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> > >      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's

Sexuality:
> > > Friends Talking message board
> > > <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
36,

> > > pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **************************************
> > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:31:12 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186356672.16367.1203864253 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
>
>
> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> clue how to to OO.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> said:
> > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the

evolution of
> > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
did

> > something about it.
> >
> > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > The
> > History of Programming Languages
> >
> > -- tj
> >
> > ==========================================
> > J. T. Johnson
> > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >
> > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > existing model obsolete."
> >                                                    -- Buckminster Fuller
> > ==========================================
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:49:38 -0400
> From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <10aacf4b49e1ff295a6726c77d8c619d at well.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> Actually, "to become closer to God" was way up there on the list.  I
> don't remember "a yogic discipline" as such making the list, but
> certainly "exercise" did.
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers
> > did
> > not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> > group) who have sex as a:
> >
> > means to enlightenment
> > a yogic discipline
> > a way to experience unity with God
> > to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> >
> > and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting
> > cultural
> > differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different
> > set
> > of reasons than those included in the survey.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> > <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> >> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I had no
> >> idea
> >> there were 237 reasons.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >> droberts at rti.org
> >> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>
> >> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> >>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> >>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
> >>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> >>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> >>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> >>> WebMD Medical News
> >>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> *
> >>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways
> >>> and
> >>> comes up with 237 reasons.
> >>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some
> >>> motivations
> >>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> >>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> >>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> >>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> >>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> >>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> >>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
> >>> to
> >>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
> >>> women
> >>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other
> >>> studies at
> >>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> >>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> >>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237
> >>> reasons.
> >>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> >>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
> >>> of
> >>> the 237 reasons.
> >>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> >>> */
> >>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> >>> students' top reasons for having sex:
> >>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> >>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> >>>      3.     Expressing love
> >>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> >>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> >>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> >>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> >>>      8.     Mere opportunity
> >>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> >>> circumstances
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> >>> frequently
> >>> cited by the students.
> >>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> >>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,
> >>> drugs,
> >>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> >>> seemingly
> >>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
> >>> duty
> >>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> >>> */
> >>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> >>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> >>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> >>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>      3.     It feels good.
> >>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>      8.     It's fun.
> >>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
> >>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> >>> */
> >>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar
> >>> to
> >>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> >>> according to the study:
> >>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>      2.     It feels good.
> >>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>      4.     It's fun.
> >>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> >>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's
> >>> Sexuality:
> >>> Friends Talking message board
> >>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
> >>> 36,
> >>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> **************************************
> >>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> >>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >>>
> >>> ============================================================
> >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
>
>
> "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
>
>
> Thomas Kyd
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:21 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f16528920708051704k7e933c8dr835770886b92ddf8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> As one who lived inside a LISP machine for years, and worked extensively
> building large OO-based applications using Loops, Flavors, CLOS, and KEE
> prior to the birth of C++, I pride myself on being a member of that elite
> 2%.
>
> I just wish I could get my fellow SW developers to agree with me.
>
> ;-}
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 8/5/07, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > clue how to to OO.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > said:
> > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > evolution of
> > > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
> > did
> > > something about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > The
> > > History of Programming Languages
> > >
> > > -- tj
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > > J. T. Johnson
> > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >
> > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > existing model obsolete."
> > >                                                    -- Buckminster

Fuller

> > > ==========================================
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/1cafd975
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:30:53 -0400
> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <002a01c7d7c1$0c5c1610$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-Certina's
> "The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and only one
> copy.  but in French it's only $25 bucks!    Hey should I snap it up?  
>
>
> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> NY NY 10040                      
> tel: [phone]                
> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> explorations: www.synapse9.com    
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
> > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > Coffee Group
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
> > Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
> > science is really done and really written about and biases,
> > blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement to the even
> > older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > said:
> > > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
> > patches as keys
> > > to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally
> > common bias of
> > > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
> > the time lags
> > > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
> > discovery
> > > of the independent developmental process that are
> > functional necessities in
> > > the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process
> > of entropy,
> > > seems to requires the local development of individual
> > self-organizing
> > > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> > >  
> > > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
> > the topology
> > > of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
> > hubs changes
> > > network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> > > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
> > > distribution of connections, as it has become called,
> > develops as the
> > > network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
> > selection)
> > > to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
> > contribution to the
> > > direct process by which system producing the network
> > develops, i.e. to
> > > what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
> > cause of
> > > the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
> > > square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
> > connection, a statistical property
> > > discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> > > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
> > process by
> > > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
> > things,...
> > > and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning
> > how so many
> > > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
> > squarely
> > > and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not
> > > fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
> > > observant examination of the facts!
> > >  
> > > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
> > our tools,
> > > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns
> > > and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
> > associated with
> > > them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for
> > the purpose,
> > > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
> > direct causal
> > > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
> > consistently
> > > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
> > behavior to not
> > > exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our
> > forbearers were
> > > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
> > tools were
> > > built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > NY NY 10040                      
> > > tel: [phone]                
> > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Roger
> > Critchlow
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
> > > cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
> > >
> > >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>
> rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
> > > bu
> > > siness
> > >
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
> html?ref=b
> > usiness>
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:07:23 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070805100723.GS3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> isn't an OO language at all?
>
> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
>
> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> up by the compiler immediately.
>
> More significant C++ deficiencies...
>
> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> different compilers.
>
> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> users.
>
> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> been fully debugged.
>
> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > clue how to to OO.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > said:
> > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the

evolution of
> > > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
did

> > > something about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > The
> > > History of Programming Languages
> > >
> > > -- tj
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > > J. T. Johnson
> > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >
> > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > existing model obsolete."
> > >                                                    -- Buckminster

Fuller

> > > ==========================================
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> --
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:45:23 -0600
> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <71997FD4-7BF4-4BC3-9611-130050328C64 at backspaces.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in  
> the 1995-2000 time frame.
>
> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for  
> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out  
> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++  
> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to  
> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too  
> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly  
> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
>
> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve  
> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to  
> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not  
> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
>
> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the  
> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper  
> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the  
> implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way  
> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the  
> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It  
> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted  
> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
>
> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks  
> really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to  
> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to  
> do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
>
> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in  
> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and  
> dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
>
> I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long  
> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But  
> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not  
> sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to  
> guide folks around the horrors.
>
> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that  
> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
>
>      -- Owen
>
>
> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > isn't an OO language at all?
> >
> > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >
> > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > up by the compiler immediately.
> >
> > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >
> > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > different compilers.
> >
> > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > users.
> >
> > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > been fully debugged.
> >
> > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from  
> >> this
> >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason  
> >> they
> >> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
> >> language was
> >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> >> clue how to to OO.
> >>
> >> davew
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >> said:
> >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the  
> >>>> evolution of
> >>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest  
> >>> and did
> >>> something about it.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
> >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>> The
> >>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>
> >>> -- tj
> >>>
> >>> ==========================================
> >>> J. T. Johnson
> >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>
> >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>                                                    -- Buckminster  
> >>> Fuller
> >>> ==========================================
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > Mathematics                        
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:01:15 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <f16528920708052101t73150256y1c99667b6c950477 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Interesting, Owen.  I'm curious what some of D's features will result in,
> performance-wise.  Particularly garbage collection, and the single
> inheritance hierarchy.
>
> --Doug
>
> --
> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> droberts at rti.org
> doug at parrot-farm.net
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
> On 8/5/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
> >
> > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in
> > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >
> > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> > shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
> > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to
> > agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> > many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
> > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >
> > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not
> > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >
> > So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the
> > multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
> > around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> > implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
> > to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> > implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
> > also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> > system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
> >
> > This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> > really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> > interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to
> > do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> >
> > This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> > isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> > dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> >
> > I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
> > conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
> > its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
> > sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
> > guide folks around the horrors.
> >
> > HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
> > may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >
> >      -- Owen
> >
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > > isn't an OO language at all?
> > >
> > > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> > >
> > > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > > up by the compiler immediately.
> > >
> > > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> > >
> > > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > > different compilers.
> > >
> > > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > > users.
> > >
> > > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > > been fully debugged.
> > >
> > > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
> > >> this
> > >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> > >> they
> > >> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> > >> language was
> > >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > >> clue how to to OO.
> > >>
> > >> davew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > >> said:
> > >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > >>>> evolution of
> > >>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest
> > >>> and did
> > >>> something about it.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> > >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> > >>> The
> > >>> History of Programming Languages
> > >>>
> > >>> -- tj
> > >>>
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>> J. T. Johnson
> > >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> > >>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >>>
> > >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > >>> existing model obsolete."
> > >>>                                                    -- Buckminster
> > >>> Fuller
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>
> > >> ============================================================
> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > > Mathematics
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:

http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/78bc6ac5
/attachment-0001.html

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:50:44 +1000
> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <20070805115044.GU3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:45:23PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
> > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in  
> > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >
> > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for  
> > shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out  
> > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++  
> > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to  
> > agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too  
> > many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly  
> > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >
>
> The ABI issue is still with us. Its less of a problem in the open
> source world (you just compile all your C++ libraries with the
> compiler you want to use), than in the close source world, but if
> you're in the habit of switching compilers regularly (I often switch
> between gcc and icc), it is a nuisance to have to rebuild all your
> libraries, or have special paths for different compilers. Its the same
> problem with those OSes that have combined 32 and 64 bit modes (Irix,
> the more recent Linuxes for instance).
>
> > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve  
> > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to  
> > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not  
> > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >
>
> Indeed, one of C++'s failings is the difficulty in learning how to
> program it correct (not withstanding Meyers's fine efforts in this
> regard). But _once_ you have learnt, you are every bit as productive
> as in other (presumably easier to learn) environments.
>
> >
> > HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that  
> > may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >
> >      -- Owen
>
> I'll look at D one of these days. I'm waiting for it to develop a level
> of maturity and adoption... I have been a committed C++ programmer for
> the last 14 years, but prior to that, I was a died-in-the-wool Pascal
> programmer. I do switch for better languages, when significantly
> better alternatives exist. At present neither Java nor C# cut the
> mustard.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> --
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> Mathematics                        
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:06:58 -0400
> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam at redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <1186412818.19485.1203968337 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
>
> If pressed into a corner, I would say that C++ is not an OO language at
> all - because the philosophy behind its creation is antithetical in
> important ways to the IDEA of objects.  Examples:
>
>    Simula is considered the first Object language (not Simula-68 which
>    was a programming language, not an object language like Simula) and
>    its philosophical foundation was to create "natural" constructs
>    reflective of a problem domain that could be easily combined and
>    connected to solve problems - with zero concern about the machine
>    resources or performance efficiency required behind the scenes.  In
>    contrast - Stroustrup explicitly and adamantly refused to allow
>    anything into C++ that would impair the speed of execution and
>    efficiency of machine utilization that was available in C.
>
>     Smalltalk - the exemplar object language (even though it is really
>     class based and not object based like Self) had a similar
>     philosophical foundation - to allow exploratory, "natural," and
>     interactive dialog between domain experts (and children) and the
>     machine in pursuit of a problem solution - also with minimal concern
>     for machine performance, the machine was supposed to do the heavy
>     lifting, not the human.  The closest that C++ came to this idea was
>     Stroustrup's intent to provide "discipline" to out of control C
>     programmers who prided themselves on how terse and obfuscatory they
>     could make code that would still run and provide specified results.
>     (they had annual contests dedicated to this endeavor and probably
>     still do).
>
>    The object idea is fundamentally dependent on the concept that
>    EVERYTHING is an Object - and any language that enforces strong
>    typing violates this principle.
>
> Having said that - I would admit that C++ is indeed a Turing machine and
> is therefore, at its core, cannot be differentiated from any other
> programming language and that it does provide some constructs that allow
> a developer to construct objects (classes) and do object-like coding -
> but doing so is very unnatural, uncomfortable, and "feels wrong."
>
> The idea of objects leads one to very different analytical (mostly
> decomposition) and design solutions than procedural or data-based
> thinking.  Given an object design it is very difficult to express that
> design in C++ and trivial to express that design in Smalltalk.  (Ruby
> makes it easy to express the idea but does make it a bit more difficult,
> but only because you have to ignore some non-relevant aspects of the
> language.)  Lisp - with CLOS,  Flavors and similar extensions -also
> makes it easier to express object design.
>
>
> > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >
>
> I would be willing to bet that an individual proficient in Smalltalk to
> the same degree as you are in C++ could develop almost any piece of
> software in 1/3 to 1/5 the time it took the C++ team, and with some
> minor tricks make it run in as small or smaller a footprint with an
> equal or lesser number of machine cycles.  I have consistently seen it
> done.
>
> davew
>
>
> >

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > Mathematics                              
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam at redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> ************************************

[Prof David West]

True, but the rationalizations are the only things that are important.

As a cultural anthropologist I am interested in building models of
culture - complex non-deterministic models and rationalizations are the
only data points that are useful.  Rationalizations provide some measure
of insight into why people think they do what they do and these insights
can be compared and contrasted with other aspects of culture
(paraphrasing here, the complex whole that includes world view
(metaphysics), values, practices, customs, and technology) to build
models that are mildly explanatory and even mildly and statistically
predictive.

An anthropologist like Marvin Harris would be interested in causes - he
explains Hindu behavior vis-a-vis cows in terms of calories available
and the inevitable mass die off of Hindu's if they started to eat beef,
or Yanomami violence also from the lack of available calories.  Dawkins
(selfish gene) would also be interested in causes - but in his case
there would only be one - a gene's desire to reproduce explains
everything, including the most exotic sexual practice you could imagine.

In a similar vein - Penthouse Letters provides a fascinating insight
into what Americans think turns them on.  A statistical history of pages
devoted to different topics shows some really interesting trends over
the past twenty years - and not because anyone believes that the letters
are "real" or that they reflect what people are actually doing - only in
that they accurately reflect what readers think is exciting enough to
read about that they would shell out the $6-10 to buy the magazine.

davew


On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:47:01 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
<nickthompson at earthlink.net> said:

> All,
>
> While there may be an infinity of  RATIONALIZATIONS for sex, there are
> probably relatively few CAUSES.  How many of you would actually take at
> face value ANYONE'S account of why they wanted to have sex with you?  
>
>  
>
> Nick  
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> > To: <friam at redfish.com>
> > Date: 8/6/2007 10:03:00 AM
> > Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> >
> > Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> > friam at redfish.com
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > friam-request at redfish.com
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > friam-owner at redfish.com
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. The Verifier (Roger Critchlow)
> >    2. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> >    3. Re: The Verifier (Prof David West)
> >    4. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex] (Prof David West)
> >    5. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Prof David West)
> >    6. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> >       (Pamela McCorduck)
> >    7. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Douglas Roberts)
> >    8. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> >    9. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Russell Standish)
> >   10. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Owen Densmore)
> >   11. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Douglas Roberts)
> >   12. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Russell Standish)
> >   13. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >       (Prof David West)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:46:58 -0600
> > From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <Friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID:
> > <66d1c98f0708050946s5661f94dw31d905b8d2e5cf1e at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> > biases among groups of researchers.
> >
> >
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=busine
> ss
> >
> > -- rec --
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/bc759113
> /attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400
> > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <001201c7d7ae$1d58f900$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> > to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common bias of
> > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> > the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> > the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of entropy,
> > seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >  
> > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> > networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> > network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> > of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> > and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> > final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> > by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> > Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> > being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> > of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> > discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> > and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so many
> > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> > then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> > the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> > examination of the facts!
> >  
> > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> > is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> > them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the purpose,
> > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> > exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers were
> > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> > built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
> >  
> >  
> >
> > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040                      
> > tel: [phone]                
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >
> >
> > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> > biases among groups of researchers.
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> > siness
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> > usiness>
> >
> > -- rec --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/7f8b286c
> /attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:40 -0400
> > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> > Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <1186355500.13653.1203862307 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >
> >
> >
> > An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
> > Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and really
> > written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement
> > to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > said:
> > > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches as keys
> > > to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common bias of
> > > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time lags
> > > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the discovery of
> > > the independent developmental process that are functional necessities in
> > > the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of entropy,
> > > seems to requires the local development of individual self-organizing
> > > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> > >  
> > > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the topology of
> > > networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> > > network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> > > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free' distribution
> > > of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network adds
> > > and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to produce the
> > > final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct process
> > > by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what happens.
> > > Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the pattern as
> > > being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square distribution
> > > of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> > > discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> > > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary process by
> > > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of things,...
> > > and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so many
> > > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at squarely and
> > > then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not fitting
> > > the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> > > examination of the facts!
> > >  
> > > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our tools,
> > > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns and
> > > is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated with
> > > them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the purpose,
> > > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct causal
> > > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> > > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior to not
> > > exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers were
> > > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools were
> > > built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >
> > > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > NY NY 10040                      
> > > tel: [phone]                
> > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > >
> > >
> > > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for cognitive
> > > biases among groups of researchers.
> > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=bu
> > > siness
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?ref=b
> > > usiness>
> > >
> > > -- rec --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:25:20 -0400
> > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <1186356320.15204.1203862957 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >
> >
> >
> > I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers did
> > not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> > group) who have sex as a:
> >
> > means to enlightenment
> > a yogic discipline
> > a way to experience unity with God
> > to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> >
> > and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting cultural
> > differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different set
> > of reasons than those included in the survey.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> > <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> > > I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I had no
> > > idea
> > > there were 237 reasons.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > > droberts at rti.org
> > > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> > >
> > > On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > > Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> > > > Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> > > > From:   JerSol at aol.com
> > > > To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> > > > *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> > > > By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> > > > WebMD Medical News
> > > > Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > *
> > > > Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways
> and
> > > > comes up with 237 reasons.
> > > > The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some motivations
> > > > came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> > > > The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> > > > according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> > > > Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> > > > The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> > > > psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> > > > First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
> to
> > > > anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
> women
> > > > were taking psychology classes or were participating in other studies
> at
> > > > the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> > > > All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> > > > researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237 reasons.
> > > > Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> > > > and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
> of
> > > > the 237 reasons.
> > > > /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> > > > */
> > > > The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> > > > students' top reasons for having sex:
> > > >      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> > > >      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> > > >      3.     Expressing love
> > > >      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> > > >      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> > > >      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> > > >      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> > > >      8.     Mere opportunity
> > > >      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> > > > circumstances
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> frequently
> > > > cited by the students.
> > > > Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> > > > rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money, drugs,
> > > > or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> seemingly
> > > > unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
> duty
> > > > or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> > > > */
> > > > The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> > > > sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> > > > Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> > > >      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > > >      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > > >      3.     It feels good.
> > > >      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > > >      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > > >      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > > >      7.     I was "horny."
> > > >      8.     It's fun.
> > > >      9.     I realized I was in love.
> > > >      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> > > > */
> > > > In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar to
> > > > the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> > > > according to the study:
> > > >      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > > >      2.     It feels good.
> > > >      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > > >      4.     It's fun.
> > > >      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > > >      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > > >      7.     I was "horny."
> > > >      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > > >      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> > > >      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's
> Sexuality:
> > > > Friends Talking message board
> > > > <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
> 36,
> > > > pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > **************************************
> > > > Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> > > > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:31:12 -0400
> > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <1186356672.16367.1203864253 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > clue how to to OO.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > said:
> > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> evolution of
> > > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
> did
> > > something about it.
> > >
> > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > The
> > > History of Programming Languages
> > >
> > > -- tj
> > >
> > > ==========================================
> > > J. T. Johnson
> > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >
> > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > existing model obsolete."
> > >                                                    -- Buckminster Fuller
> > > ==========================================
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 6
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:49:38 -0400
> > From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <10aacf4b49e1ff295a6726c77d8c619d at well.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >
> > Actually, "to become closer to God" was way up there on the list.  I
> > don't remember "a yogic discipline" as such making the list, but
> > certainly "exercise" did.
> >
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the researchers
> > > did
> > > not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals in this
> > > group) who have sex as a:
> > >
> > > means to enlightenment
> > > a yogic discipline
> > > a way to experience unity with God
> > > to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> > >
> > > and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting
> > > cultural
> > > differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a different
> > > set
> > > of reasons than those included in the survey.
> > >
> > > davew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> > > <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> > >> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I had no
> > >> idea
> > >> there were 237 reasons.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > >> droberts at rti.org
> > >> doug at parrot-farm.net
> > >> 505-455-7333 - Office
> > >> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> > >>
> > >> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -------- Original Message --------
> > >>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> > >>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> > >>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
> > >>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> > >>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> > >>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> > >>> WebMD Medical News
> > >>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> > >>>
> > >>> /*
> > >>> *
> > >>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the ways
> > >>> and
> > >>> comes up with 237 reasons.
> > >>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some
> > >>> motivations
> > >>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> > >>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> > >>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> > >>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> > >>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of the
> > >>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> > >>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin, Texas,
> > >>> to
> > >>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
> > >>> women
> > >>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other
> > >>> studies at
> > >>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> > >>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> > >>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237
> > >>> reasons.
> > >>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology students
> > >>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for each
> > >>> of
> > >>> the 237 reasons.
> > >>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> > >>> */
> > >>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> > >>> students' top reasons for having sex:
> > >>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> > >>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> > >>>      3.     Expressing love
> > >>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> > >>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> > >>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> > >>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> > >>>      8.     Mere opportunity
> > >>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> > >>> circumstances
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> > >>> frequently
> > >>> cited by the students.
> > >>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their partner,
> > >>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,
> > >>> drugs,
> > >>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> > >>> seemingly
> > >>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
> > >>> duty
> > >>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> > >>> */
> > >>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and women have
> > >>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> > >>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> > >>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > >>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > >>>      3.     It feels good.
> > >>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > >>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > >>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > >>>      7.     I was "horny."
> > >>>      8.     It's fun.
> > >>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
> > >>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> > >>> */
> > >>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite similar
> > >>> to
> > >>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> > >>> according to the study:
> > >>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> > >>>      2.     It feels good.
> > >>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> > >>>      4.     It's fun.
> > >>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> > >>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> > >>>      7.     I was "horny."
> > >>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> > >>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> > >>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on WebMD's
> > >>> Sexuality:
> > >>> Friends Talking message board
> > >>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.8959ee29>.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007; vol
> > >>> 36,
> > >>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> **************************************
> > >>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> > >>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> > >>>
> > >>> ============================================================
> > >>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
> >
> >
> > Thomas Kyd
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 7
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:21 -0600
> > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID:
> > <f16528920708051704k7e933c8dr835770886b92ddf8 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > As one who lived inside a LISP machine for years, and worked extensively
> > building large OO-based applications using Loops, Flavors, CLOS, and KEE
> > prior to the birth of C++, I pride myself on being a member of that elite
> > 2%.
> >
> > I just wish I could get my fellow SW developers to agree with me.
> >
> > ;-}
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org
> > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > On 8/5/07, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > > made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > > clue how to to OO.
> > >
> > > davew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > > said:
> > > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > > evolution of
> > > > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
> > > did
> > > > something about it.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > > The
> > > > History of Programming Languages
> > > >
> > > > -- tj
> > > >
> > > > ==========================================
> > > > J. T. Johnson
> > > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > > >
> > > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > > existing model obsolete."
> > > >                                                    -- Buckminster
> Fuller
> > > > ==========================================
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/1cafd975
> /attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 8
> > Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:30:53 -0400
> > From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
> > Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <002a01c7d7c1$0c5c1610$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >
> > Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-Certina's
> > "The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and only one
> > copy.  but in French it's only $25 bucks!    Hey should I snap it up?  
> >
> >
> > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040                      
> > tel: [phone]                
> > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com    
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
> > > To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> > > Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
> > > Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
> > > science is really done and really written about and biases,
> > > blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement to the even
> > > older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> > >
> > > davew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> > > said:
> > > > I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
> > > patches as keys
> > > > to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally
> > > common bias of
> > > > current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
> > > the time lags
> > > > between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
> > > discovery
> > > > of the independent developmental process that are
> > > functional necessities in
> > > > the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process
> > > of entropy,
> > > > seems to requires the local development of individual
> > > self-organizing
> > > > complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> > > >  
> > > > I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> > > > insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
> > > the topology
> > > > of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
> > > hubs changes
> > > > network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> > > > remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
> > > > distribution of connections, as it has become called,
> > > develops as the
> > > > network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
> > > selection)
> > > > to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
> > > contribution to the
> > > > direct process by which system producing the network
> > > develops, i.e. to
> > > > what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
> > > cause of
> > > > the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
> > > > square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
> > > connection, a statistical property
> > > > discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> > > > wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
> > > process by
> > > > which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
> > > things,...
> > > > and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning
> > > how so many
> > > > hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
> > > squarely
> > > > and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not
> > > > fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
> > > > observant examination of the facts!
> > > >  
> > > > I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
> > > our tools,
> > > > since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the patterns
> > > > and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
> > > associated with
> > > > them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for
> > > the purpose,
> > > > these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
> > > direct causal
> > > > mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
> > > consistently
> > > > declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
> > > behavior to not
> > > > exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our
> > > forbearers were
> > > > just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
> > > tools were
> > > > built in a way that can't describe anything else?  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > > Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > > > NY NY 10040                      
> > > > tel: [phone]                
> > > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
> > > > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>    
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> > > > Behalf Of Roger
> > > Critchlow
> > > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > > Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
> > > > cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>
> > rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
> > > > bu
> > > > siness
> > > >
> > > <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
> > html?ref=b
> > > usiness>
> > >
> > > -- rec --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:07:23 +1000
> > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <20070805100723.GS3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > isn't an OO language at all?
> >
> > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >
> > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > up by the compiler immediately.
> >
> > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >
> > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > different compilers.
> >
> > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > users.
> >
> > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > been fully debugged.
> >
> > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from this
> > > series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > > from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > > languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason they
> > > made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > > failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a language was
> > > relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > > clue how to to OO.
> > >
> > > davew
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > > said:
> > > > >From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> evolution of
> > > > various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest and
> did
> > > > something about it.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > > The
> > > > History of Programming Languages
> > > >
> > > > -- tj
> > > >
> > > > ==========================================
> > > > J. T. Johnson
> > > > Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > > www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > > 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > > http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > > >
> > > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > > To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > > existing model obsolete."
> > > >                                                    -- Buckminster
> Fuller
> > > > ==========================================
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > Mathematics                        
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 10
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:45:23 -0600
> > From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <71997FD4-7BF4-4BC3-9611-130050328C64 at backspaces.net>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >
> > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in  
> > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >
> > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for  
> > shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out  
> > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++  
> > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to  
> > agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too  
> > many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly  
> > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >
> > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve  
> > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to  
> > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not  
> > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >
> > So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the  
> > multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper  
> > around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the  
> > implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way  
> > to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the  
> > implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It  
> > also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted  
> > system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
> >
> > This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks  
> > really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to  
> > interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to  
> > do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> >
> > This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in  
> > isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and  
> > dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> >
> > I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long  
> > conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But  
> > its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not  
> > sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to  
> > guide folks around the horrors.
> >
> > HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that  
> > may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >
> >      -- Owen
> >
> >
> > On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > > isn't an OO language at all?
> > >
> > > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> > >
> > > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > > up by the compiler immediately.
> > >
> > > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> > >
> > > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > > different compilers.
> > >
> > > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > > users.
> > >
> > > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > > been fully debugged.
> > >
> > > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from  
> > >> this
> > >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason  
> > >> they
> > >> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
> > >> language was
> > >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > >> clue how to to OO.
> > >>
> > >> davew
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > >> said:
> > >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the  
> > >>>> evolution of
> > >>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest  
> > >>> and did
> > >>> something about it.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
> > >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> > >>> The
> > >>> History of Programming Languages
> > >>>
> > >>> -- tj
> > >>>
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>> J. T. Johnson
> > >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> > >>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > >>>
> > >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > >>> existing model obsolete."
> > >>>                                                    -- Buckminster  
> > >>> Fuller
> > >>> ==========================================
> > >>
> > >> ============================================================
> > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > > Mathematics                        
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 11
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:01:15 -0600
> > From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID:
> > <f16528920708052101t73150256y1c99667b6c950477 at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> > Interesting, Owen.  I'm curious what some of D's features will result in,
> > performance-wise.  Particularly garbage collection, and the single
> > inheritance hierarchy.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts, RTI International
> > droberts at rti.org
> > doug at parrot-farm.net
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> > On 8/5/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in
> > > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> > >
> > > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> > > shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
> > > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> > > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to
> > > agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> > > many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
> > > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> > >
> > > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> > > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> > > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not
> > > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> > >
> > > So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the
> > > multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
> > > around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> > > implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
> > > to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> > > implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
> > > also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> > > system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no cost.
> > >
> > > This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> > > really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> > > interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to
> > > do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> > >
> > > This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> > > isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> > > dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> > >
> > > I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
> > > conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
> > > its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
> > > sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
> > > guide folks around the horrors.
> > >
> > > HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
> > > may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> > >
> > >      -- Owen
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> > >
> > > > C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying that it
> > > > isn't an OO language at all?
> > > >
> > > > I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> > > > object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> > > > above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->", "[]"
> > > > and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> > > > namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> > > > up by the compiler immediately.
> > > >
> > > > More significant C++ deficiencies...
> > > >
> > > > Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> > > > standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> > > > different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> > > > meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> > > > different compilers.
> > > >
> > > > But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> > > > what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> > > > users.
> > > >
> > > > Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This comes
> > > > from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> > > > is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no bare
> > > > pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> > > > built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> > > > boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for access
> > > > to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++ type), and
> > > > for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code has
> > > > been fully debugged.
> > > >
> > > > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > > > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > > > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > > > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
> > > >> this
> > > >> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still absent
> > > >> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> > > >> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> > > >> they
> > > >> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> > > >> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> > > >> language was
> > > >> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> > > >> clue how to to OO.
> > > >>
> > > >> davew
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> > > >> said:
> > > >>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> > > >>>> evolution of
> > > >>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest
> > > >>> and did
> > > >>> something about it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> > > >>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> > > >>> The
> > > >>> History of Programming Languages
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -- tj
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ==========================================
> > > >>> J. T. Johnson
> > > >>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> > > >>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> > > >>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> > > >>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> > > >>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> > > >>> existing model obsolete."
> > > >>>                                                    -- Buckminster
> > > >>> Fuller
> > > >>> ==========================================
> > > >>
> > > >> ============================================================
> > > >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ------
> > > > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > > > Mathematics
> > > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > > > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > ------
> > > >
> > > > ============================================================
> > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070805/78bc6ac5
> /attachment-0001.html
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 12
> > Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:50:44 +1000
> > From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <20070805115044.GU3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:45:23PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
> > > Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in  
> > > the 1995-2000 time frame.
> > >
> > > This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for  
> > > shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out  
> > > that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++  
> > > being a failure -- it just took too much time for various projects to  
> > > agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too  
> > > many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly  
> > > differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> > >
> >
> > The ABI issue is still with us. Its less of a problem in the open
> > source world (you just compile all your C++ libraries with the
> > compiler you want to use), than in the close source world, but if
> > you're in the habit of switching compilers regularly (I often switch
> > between gcc and icc), it is a nuisance to have to rebuild all your
> > libraries, or have special paths for different compilers. Its the same
> > problem with those OSes that have combined 32 and 64 bit modes (Irix,
> > the more recent Linuxes for instance).
> >
> > > The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve  
> > > Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to  
> > > shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could not  
> > > agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed, one of C++'s failings is the difficulty in learning how to
> > program it correct (not withstanding Meyers's fine efforts in this
> > regard). But _once_ you have learnt, you are every bit as productive
> > as in other (presumably easier to learn) environments.
> >
> > >
> > > HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that  
> > > may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> > >    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> > >
> > >      -- Owen
> >
> > I'll look at D one of these days. I'm waiting for it to develop a level
> > of maturity and adoption... I have been a committed C++ programmer for
> > the last 14 years, but prior to that, I was a died-in-the-wool Pascal
> > programmer. I do switch for better languages, when significantly
> > better alternatives exist. At present neither Java nor C# cut the
> > mustard.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > Mathematics                        
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 13
> > Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:06:58 -0400
> > From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> > To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> > <friam at redfish.com>
> > Message-ID: <1186412818.19485.1203968337 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >
> >
> > If pressed into a corner, I would say that C++ is not an OO language at
> > all - because the philosophy behind its creation is antithetical in
> > important ways to the IDEA of objects.  Examples:
> >
> >    Simula is considered the first Object language (not Simula-68 which
> >    was a programming language, not an object language like Simula) and
> >    its philosophical foundation was to create "natural" constructs
> >    reflective of a problem domain that could be easily combined and
> >    connected to solve problems - with zero concern about the machine
> >    resources or performance efficiency required behind the scenes.  In
> >    contrast - Stroustrup explicitly and adamantly refused to allow
> >    anything into C++ that would impair the speed of execution and
> >    efficiency of machine utilization that was available in C.
> >
> >     Smalltalk - the exemplar object language (even though it is really
> >     class based and not object based like Self) had a similar
> >     philosophical foundation - to allow exploratory, "natural," and
> >     interactive dialog between domain experts (and children) and the
> >     machine in pursuit of a problem solution - also with minimal concern
> >     for machine performance, the machine was supposed to do the heavy
> >     lifting, not the human.  The closest that C++ came to this idea was
> >     Stroustrup's intent to provide "discipline" to out of control C
> >     programmers who prided themselves on how terse and obfuscatory they
> >     could make code that would still run and provide specified results.
> >     (they had annual contests dedicated to this endeavor and probably
> >     still do).
> >
> >    The object idea is fundamentally dependent on the concept that
> >    EVERYTHING is an Object - and any language that enforces strong
> >    typing violates this principle.
> >
> > Having said that - I would admit that C++ is indeed a Turing machine and
> > is therefore, at its core, cannot be differentiated from any other
> > programming language and that it does provide some constructs that allow
> > a developer to construct objects (classes) and do object-like coding -
> > but doing so is very unnatural, uncomfortable, and "feels wrong."
> >
> > The idea of objects leads one to very different analytical (mostly
> > decomposition) and design solutions than procedural or data-based
> > thinking.  Given an object design it is very difficult to express that
> > design in C++ and trivial to express that design in Smalltalk.  (Ruby
> > makes it easy to express the idea but does make it a bit more difficult,
> > but only because you have to ignore some non-relevant aspects of the
> > language.)  Lisp - with CLOS,  Flavors and similar extensions -also
> > makes it easier to express object design.
> >
> >
> > > But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> > > complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> > > development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give a fig
> > > whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> > >
> >
> > I would be willing to bet that an individual proficient in Smalltalk to
> > the same degree as you are in C++ could develop almost any piece of
> > software in 1/3 to 1/5 the time it took the C++ team, and with some
> > minor tricks make it run in as small or smaller a footprint with an
> > equal or lesser number of machine cycles.  I have consistently seen it
> > done.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> > > Mathematics                              
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> > > Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Friam mailing list
> > Friam at redfish.com
> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >
> >
> > End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> > ************************************
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[David Breecker]

And then of course there is Dawkins' "Memes," some of which are  
probably at work here.  At risk of sounding prurient... may we know a  
bit about the Penthouse statistics and trends?
db

On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Prof David West wrote:

>
> True, but the rationalizations are the only things that are important.
>
> As a cultural anthropologist I am interested in building models of
> culture - complex non-deterministic models and rationalizations are  
> the
> only data points that are useful.  Rationalizations provide some  
> measure
> of insight into why people think they do what they do and these  
> insights
> can be compared and contrasted with other aspects of culture
> (paraphrasing here, the complex whole that includes world view
> (metaphysics), values, practices, customs, and technology) to build
> models that are mildly explanatory and even mildly and statistically
> predictive.
>
> An anthropologist like Marvin Harris would be interested in causes  
> - he
> explains Hindu behavior vis-a-vis cows in terms of calories available
> and the inevitable mass die off of Hindu's if they started to eat  
> beef,
> or Yanomami violence also from the lack of available calories.  
> Dawkins
> (selfish gene) would also be interested in causes - but in his case
> there would only be one - a gene's desire to reproduce explains
> everything, including the most exotic sexual practice you could  
> imagine.
>
> In a similar vein - Penthouse Letters provides a fascinating insight
> into what Americans think turns them on.  A statistical history of  
> pages
> devoted to different topics shows some really interesting trends over
> the past twenty years - and not because anyone believes that the  
> letters
> are "real" or that they reflect what people are actually doing -  
> only in
> that they accurately reflect what readers think is exciting enough to
> read about that they would shell out the $6-10 to buy the magazine.
>
> davew
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:47:01 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> <nickthompson at earthlink.net> said:
>> All,
>>
>> While there may be an infinity of  RATIONALIZATIONS for sex, there  
>> are
>> probably relatively few CAUSES.  How many of you would actually  
>> take at
>> face value ANYONE'S account of why they wanted to have sex with you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>> [Original Message]
>>> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
>>> To: <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Date: 8/6/2007 10:03:00 AM
>>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
>>>
>>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>>> friam at redfish.com
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> friam-request at redfish.com
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> friam-owner at redfish.com
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>>    1. The Verifier (Roger Critchlow)
>>>    2. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
>>>    3. Re: The Verifier (Prof David West)
>>>    4. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex] (Prof  
>>> David West)
>>>    5. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Prof David West)
>>>    6. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
>>>       (Pamela McCorduck)
>>>    7. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Douglas Roberts)
>>>    8. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
>>>    9. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Russell Standish)
>>>   10. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Owen Densmore)
>>>   11. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Douglas Roberts)
>>>   12. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Russell Standish)
>>>   13. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
>>>       (Prof David West)
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:46:58 -0600
>>> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <Friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <66d1c98f0708050946s5661f94dw31d905b8d2e5cf1e at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
>>> cognitive
>>> biases among groups of researchers.
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?
>> ref=busine
>> ss
>>>
>>> -- rec --
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
>> 20070805/bc759113
>> /attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400
>>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <001201c7d7ae$1d58f900$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches  
>>> as keys
>>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common  
>>> bias of
>>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time  
>>> lags
>>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the  
>>> discovery of
>>> the independent developmental process that are functional  
>>> necessities in
>>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of  
>>> entropy,
>>> seems to requires the local development of individual self-
>>> organizing
>>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>>>
>>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
>>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the  
>>> topology of
>>> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
>>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
>>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'  
>>> distribution
>>> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network  
>>> adds
>>> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to  
>>> produce the
>>> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct  
>>> process
>>> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what  
>>> happens.
>>> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the  
>>> pattern as
>>> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square  
>>> distribution
>>> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
>>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
>>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary  
>>> process by
>>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of  
>>> things,...
>>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so  
>>> many
>>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at  
>>> squarely and
>>> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not  
>>> fitting
>>> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
>>> examination of the facts!
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our  
>>> tools,
>>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
>>> patterns and
>>> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated  
>>> with
>>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the  
>>> purpose,
>>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct  
>>> causal
>>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
>>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior  
>>> to not
>>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers  
>>> were
>>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools  
>>> were
>>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
>>> NY NY 10040
>>> tel: [phone]
>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-
>>> bounces at redfish.com] On
>>> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
>>> cognitive
>>> biases among groups of researchers.
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?
>>> ref=bu
>>> siness
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
>>> 05frame.html?ref=b
>>> usiness>
>>>
>>> -- rec --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
>> 20070805/7f8b286c
>> /attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 3
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:40 -0400
>>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>> To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
>>> Group" <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:  
>>> <1186355500.13653.1203862307 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
>>> Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and  
>>> really
>>> written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good  
>>> complement
>>> to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
>>> said:
>>>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches  
>>>> as keys
>>>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common  
>>>> bias of
>>>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the  
>>>> time lags
>>>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the  
>>>> discovery of
>>>> the independent developmental process that are functional  
>>>> necessities in
>>>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of  
>>>> entropy,
>>>> seems to requires the local development of individual self-
>>>> organizing
>>>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>>>>
>>>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
>>>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the  
>>>> topology of
>>>> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs  
>>>> changes
>>>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
>>>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'  
>>>> distribution
>>>> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network  
>>>> adds
>>>> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to  
>>>> produce the
>>>> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct  
>>>> process
>>>> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what  
>>>> happens.
>>>> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the  
>>>> pattern as
>>>> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square  
>>>> distribution
>>>> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
>>>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
>>>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary  
>>>> process by
>>>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of  
>>>> things,...
>>>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how  
>>>> so many
>>>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at  
>>>> squarely and
>>>> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not  
>>>> fitting
>>>> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
>>>> examination of the facts!
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our  
>>>> tools,
>>>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
>>>> patterns and
>>>> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns  
>>>> associated with
>>>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the  
>>>> purpose,
>>>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct  
>>>> causal
>>>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps  
>>>> consistently
>>>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior  
>>>> to not
>>>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our  
>>>> forbearers were
>>>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional  
>>>> tools were
>>>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
>>>> NY NY 10040
>>>> tel: [phone]
>>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
>>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-
>>>> bounces at redfish.com] On
>>>> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
>>>> cognitive
>>>> biases among groups of researchers.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
>>>> 05frame.html?ref=bu
>>>> siness
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
>>>> 05frame.html?ref=b
>>>> usiness>
>>>>
>>>> -- rec --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 4
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:25:20 -0400
>>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:  
>>> <1186356320.15204.1203862957 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the  
>>> researchers did
>>> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals  
>>> in this
>>> group) who have sex as a:
>>>
>>> means to enlightenment
>>> a yogic discipline
>>> a way to experience unity with God
>>> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
>>>
>>> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting  
>>> cultural
>>> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a  
>>> different set
>>> of reasons than those included in the survey.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
>>> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
>>>> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I  
>>>> had no
>>>> idea
>>>> there were 237 reasons.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
>>>> droberts at rti.org
>>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>>
>>>> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
>>>>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
>>>>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
>>>>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
>>>>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
>>>>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
>>>>> WebMD Medical News
>>>>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> *
>>>>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the  
>>>>> ways
>> and
>>>>> comes up with 237 reasons.
>>>>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some  
>>>>> motivations
>>>>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
>>>>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
>>>>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
>>>>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
>>>>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of  
>>>>> the
>>>>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
>>>>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin,  
>>>>> Texas,
>> to
>>>>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
>> women
>>>>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other  
>>>>> studies
>> at
>>>>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
>>>>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
>>>>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237  
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology  
>>>>> students
>>>>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for  
>>>>> each
>> of
>>>>> the 237 reasons.
>>>>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
>>>>> */
>>>>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
>>>>> students' top reasons for having sex:
>>>>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
>>>>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
>>>>>      3.     Expressing love
>>>>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
>>>>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
>>>>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
>>>>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
>>>>>      8.     Mere opportunity
>>>>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
>> frequently
>>>>> cited by the students.
>>>>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their  
>>>>> partner,
>>>>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,  
>>>>> drugs,
>>>>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
>> seemingly
>>>>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
>> duty
>>>>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
>>>>> */
>>>>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and  
>>>>> women have
>>>>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
>>>>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
>>>>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
>>>>>      3.     It feels good.
>>>>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
>>>>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
>>>>>      8.     It's fun.
>>>>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
>>>>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
>>>>> */
>>>>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite  
>>>>> similar to
>>>>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
>>>>> according to the study:
>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
>>>>>      2.     It feels good.
>>>>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
>>>>>      4.     It's fun.
>>>>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
>>>>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
>>>>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
>>>>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on  
>>>>> WebMD's
>> Sexuality:
>>>>> Friends Talking message board
>>>>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.
>>>>> 8959ee29>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007;  
>>>>> vol
>> 36,
>>>>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **************************************
>>>>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>>>>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>>>>>
>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 5
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:31:12 -0400
>>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:  
>>> <1186356672.16367.1203864253 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
>>> from this
>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
>>> absent
>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason  
>>> they
>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
>>> language was
>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
>>> clue how to to OO.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>> said:
>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
>> evolution of
>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
>>>> interest and
>> did
>>>> something about it.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
>>>> The
>>>> History of Programming Languages
>>>>
>>>> -- tj
>>>>
>>>> ==========================================
>>>> J. T. Johnson
>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
>>>>
>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>>                                                    --  
>>>> Buckminster Fuller
>>>> ==========================================
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 6
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:49:38 -0400
>>> From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <10aacf4b49e1ff295a6726c77d8c619d at well.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Actually, "to become closer to God" was way up there on the list.  I
>>> don't remember "a yogic discipline" as such making the list, but
>>> certainly "exercise" did.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the  
>>>> researchers
>>>> did
>>>> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals  
>>>> in this
>>>> group) who have sex as a:
>>>>
>>>> means to enlightenment
>>>> a yogic discipline
>>>> a way to experience unity with God
>>>> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
>>>>
>>>> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting
>>>> cultural
>>>> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a  
>>>> different
>>>> set
>>>> of reasons than those included in the survey.
>>>>
>>>> davew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
>>>> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
>>>>> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I  
>>>>> had no
>>>>> idea
>>>>> there were 237 reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
>>>>> droberts at rti.org
>>>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
>>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
>>>>>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
>>>>>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
>>>>>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
>>>>>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
>>>>>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
>>>>>> WebMD Medical News
>>>>>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the  
>>>>>> ways
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> comes up with 237 reasons.
>>>>>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some
>>>>>> motivations
>>>>>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
>>>>>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
>>>>>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
>>>>>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
>>>>>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD,  
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
>>>>>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin,  
>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men  
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> women
>>>>>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other
>>>>>> studies at
>>>>>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of  
>>>>>> Texas.
>>>>>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
>>>>>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237
>>>>>> reasons.
>>>>>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology  
>>>>>> students
>>>>>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex  
>>>>>> for each
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the 237 reasons.
>>>>>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> students' top reasons for having sex:
>>>>>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
>>>>>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
>>>>>>      3.     Expressing love
>>>>>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
>>>>>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
>>>>>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
>>>>>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
>>>>>>      8.     Mere opportunity
>>>>>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
>>>>>> circumstances
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
>>>>>> frequently
>>>>>> cited by the students.
>>>>>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their  
>>>>>> partner,
>>>>>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,
>>>>>> drugs,
>>>>>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
>>>>>> seemingly
>>>>>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex  
>>>>>> out of
>>>>>> duty
>>>>>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and  
>>>>>> women have
>>>>>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
>>>>>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
>>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
>>>>>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
>>>>>>      3.     It feels good.
>>>>>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
>>>>>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
>>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
>>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
>>>>>>      8.     It's fun.
>>>>>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
>>>>>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite  
>>>>>> similar
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
>>>>>> according to the study:
>>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
>>>>>>      2.     It feels good.
>>>>>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
>>>>>>      4.     It's fun.
>>>>>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
>>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
>>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
>>>>>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
>>>>>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
>>>>>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on  
>>>>>> WebMD's
>>>>>> Sexuality:
>>>>>> Friends Talking message board
>>>>>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.
>>>>>> 8959ee29>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August  
>>>>>> 2007; vol
>>>>>> 36,
>>>>>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **************************************
>>>>>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
>>>>>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Thomas Kyd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 7
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:21 -0600
>>> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <f16528920708051704k7e933c8dr835770886b92ddf8 at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> As one who lived inside a LISP machine for years, and worked  
>>> extensively
>>> building large OO-based applications using Loops, Flavors, CLOS,  
>>> and KEE
>>> prior to the birth of C++, I pride myself on being a member of  
>>> that elite
>>> 2%.
>>>
>>> I just wish I could get my fellow SW developers to agree with me.
>>>
>>> ;-}
>>>
>>> --Doug
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
>>> droberts at rti.org
>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>
>>> On 8/5/07, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
>>>> from this
>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
>>>> absent
>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only  
>>>> reason they
>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
>>>> language was
>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
>>>> have no
>>>> clue how to to OO.
>>>>
>>>> davew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
>>>> evolution of
>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
>>>>> interest and
>>>> did
>>>>> something about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
>>>>> The
>>>>> History of Programming Languages
>>>>>
>>>>> -- tj
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>> J. T. Johnson
>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
>>>>>
>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
>> Fuller
>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
>> 20070805/1cafd975
>> /attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 8
>>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:30:53 -0400
>>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>> To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
>>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <002a01c7d7c1$0c5c1610$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>>>
>>> Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-
>>> Certina's
>>> "The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and  
>>> only one
>>> copy.  but in French it's only $25 bucks!    Hey should I snap it  
>>> up?
>>>
>>>
>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
>>> NY NY 10040
>>> tel: [phone]
>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
>>>> To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
>>>> Coffee Group
>>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
>>>> Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
>>>> science is really done and really written about and biases,
>>>> blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement to the even
>>>> older work of Paul Feyerabend.
>>>>
>>>> davew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw"  
>>>> <sy at synapse9.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
>>>> patches as keys
>>>>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally
>>>> common bias of
>>>>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
>>>> the time lags
>>>>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
>>>> discovery
>>>>> of the independent developmental process that are
>>>> functional necessities in
>>>>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process
>>>> of entropy,
>>>>> seems to requires the local development of individual
>>>> self-organizing
>>>>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying  
>>>>> his
>>>>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
>>>> the topology
>>>>> of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
>>>> hubs changes
>>>>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
>>>>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
>>>>> distribution of connections, as it has become called,
>>>> develops as the
>>>>> network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
>>>> selection)
>>>>> to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
>>>> contribution to the
>>>>> direct process by which system producing the network
>>>> develops, i.e. to
>>>>> what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
>>>> cause of
>>>>> the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
>>>>> square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
>>>> connection, a statistical property
>>>>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
>>>>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
>>>> process by
>>>>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
>>>> things,...
>>>>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning
>>>> how so many
>>>>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
>>>> squarely
>>>>> and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just  
>>>>> not
>>>>> fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
>>>>> observant examination of the facts!
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
>>>> our tools,
>>>>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
>>>>> patterns
>>>>> and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
>>>> associated with
>>>>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for
>>>> the purpose,
>>>>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
>>>> direct causal
>>>>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
>>>> consistently
>>>>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
>>>> behavior to not
>>>>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our
>>>> forbearers were
>>>>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
>>>> tools were
>>>>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
>>>>> NY NY 10040
>>>>> tel: [phone]
>>>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
>>>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
>>>> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Roger
>>>> Critchlow
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
>>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
>>>>> cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>
>>> rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
>>>>> bu
>>>>> siness
>>>>>
>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
>>> html?ref=b
>>>> usiness>
>>>>
>>>> -- rec --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 9
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:07:23 +1000
>>> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <20070805100723.GS3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>
>>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
>>> that it
>>> isn't an OO language at all?
>>>
>>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
>>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
>>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
>>>
>>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->",  
>>> "[]"
>>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
>>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
>>> up by the compiler immediately.
>>>
>>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
>>>
>>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
>>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
>>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
>>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
>>> different compilers.
>>>
>>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
>>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
>>> users.
>>>
>>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
>>> comes
>>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
>>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no  
>>> bare
>>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
>>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
>>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
>>> access
>>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
>>> type), and
>>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code  
>>> has
>>> been fully debugged.
>>>
>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
>>> a fig
>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
>>>> from this
>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
>>>> absent
>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only  
>>>> reason they
>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
>>>> language was
>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
>>>> have no
>>>> clue how to to OO.
>>>>
>>>> davew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>>> said:
>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
>> evolution of
>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
>>>>> interest and
>> did
>>>>> something about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
>>>>> The
>>>>> History of Programming Languages
>>>>>
>>>>> -- tj
>>>>>
>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>> J. T. Johnson
>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
>>>>>
>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
>> Fuller
>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
>>> Mathematics                        
>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 10
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:45:23 -0600
>>> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <71997FD4-7BF4-4BC3-9611-130050328C64 at backspaces.net>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>>>
>>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in
>>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
>>>
>>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
>>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
>>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
>>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
>>> projects to
>>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
>>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
>>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
>>>
>>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
>>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
>>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could  
>>> not
>>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
>>>
>>> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the
>>> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
>>> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
>>> implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
>>> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
>>> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
>>> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
>>> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no  
>>> cost.
>>>
>>> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
>>> really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
>>> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to
>>> do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
>>>
>>> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
>>> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
>>> dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
>>>
>>> I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
>>> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
>>> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
>>> sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
>>> guide folks around the horrors.
>>>
>>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
>>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
>>>
>>>      -- Owen
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>
>>>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
>>>> that it
>>>> isn't an OO language at all?
>>>>
>>>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
>>>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
>>>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "-
>>>> >", "[]"
>>>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
>>>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and  
>>>> picked
>>>> up by the compiler immediately.
>>>>
>>>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
>>>>
>>>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
>>>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
>>>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
>>>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
>>>> different compilers.
>>>>
>>>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
>>>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
>>>> comes
>>>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming  
>>>> style. It
>>>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule  
>>>> "no bare
>>>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
>>>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
>>>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
>>>> access
>>>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
>>>> type), and
>>>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your  
>>>> code has
>>>> been fully debugged.
>>>>
>>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
>>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
>>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
>>>> a fig
>>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
>>>>> this
>>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
>>>>> absent
>>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
>>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
>>>>> they
>>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because  
>>>>> programmers
>>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
>>>>> language was
>>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
>>>>> have no
>>>>> clue how to to OO.
>>>>>
>>>>> davew
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
>>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>>>> said:
>>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
>>>>>>> evolution of
>>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest
>>>>>> and did
>>>>>> something about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
>>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> History of Programming Languages
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- tj
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>> J. T. Johnson
>>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>>>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
>>>>>> Fuller
>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>
>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ---
>>>> ------
>>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
>>>> Mathematics                        
>>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> ---
>>>> ------
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 11
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:01:15 -0600
>>> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <f16528920708052101t73150256y1c99667b6c950477 at mail.gmail.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> Interesting, Owen.  I'm curious what some of D's features will  
>>> result in,
>>> performance-wise.  Particularly garbage collection, and the single
>>> inheritance hierarchy.
>>>
>>> --Doug
>>>
>>> --
>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
>>> droberts at rti.org
>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>
>>> On 8/5/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This  
>>>> was in
>>>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
>>>>
>>>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
>>>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
>>>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in  
>>>> C++
>>>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
>>>> projects to
>>>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
>>>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
>>>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
>>>>
>>>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
>>>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
>>>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply  
>>>> could not
>>>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
>>>>
>>>> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like  
>>>> the
>>>> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C  
>>>> wrapper
>>>> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
>>>> implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
>>>> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
>>>> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
>>>> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
>>>> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no  
>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
>>>> really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
>>>> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero  
>>>> decided to
>>>> do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
>>>>
>>>> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
>>>> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
>>>> dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
>>>>
>>>> I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
>>>> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying:  
>>>> But
>>>> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
>>>> sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle  
>>>> trying to
>>>> guide folks around the horrors.
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
>>>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
>>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
>>>>
>>>>      -- Owen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
>>>>> that it
>>>>> isn't an OO language at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
>>>>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
>>>>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "-
>>>>> >", "[]"
>>>>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
>>>>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and  
>>>>> picked
>>>>> up by the compiler immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
>>>>>
>>>>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem -  
>>>>> the
>>>>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
>>>>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
>>>>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
>>>>> different compilers.
>>>>>
>>>>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
>>>>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to  
>>>>> novice
>>>>> users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
>>>>> comes
>>>>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming  
>>>>> style. It
>>>>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule  
>>>>> "no bare
>>>>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
>>>>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
>>>>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
>>>>> access
>>>>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
>>>>> type), and
>>>>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your  
>>>>> code has
>>>>> been fully debugged.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
>>>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
>>>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't  
>>>>> give a fig
>>>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
>>>>>> absent
>>>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
>>>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because  
>>>>>> programmers
>>>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
>>>>>> language was
>>>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
>>>>>> have no
>>>>>> clue how to to OO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> davew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
>>>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
>>>>>>>> evolution of
>>>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
>>>>>>> interest
>>>>>>> and did
>>>>>>> something about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
>>>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> History of Programming Languages
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -- tj
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>>> J. T. Johnson
>>>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
>>>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
>>>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
>>>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
>>>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
>>>>>>> existing model obsolete."
>>>>>>>                                                    --  
>>>>>>> Buckminster
>>>>>>> Fuller
>>>>>>> ==========================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ----
>>>>> ------
>>>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone]  
>>>>> (mobile)
>>>>> Mathematics
>>>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>>>>> Australia                                http://
>>>>> www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ----
>>>>> ------
>>>>>
>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
>> 20070805/78bc6ac5
>> /attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 12
>>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:50:44 +1000
>>> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID: <20070805115044.GU3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:45:23PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This  
>>>> was in
>>>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
>>>>
>>>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
>>>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
>>>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in  
>>>> C++
>>>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
>>>> projects to
>>>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
>>>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
>>>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The ABI issue is still with us. Its less of a problem in the open
>>> source world (you just compile all your C++ libraries with the
>>> compiler you want to use), than in the close source world, but if
>>> you're in the habit of switching compilers regularly (I often switch
>>> between gcc and icc), it is a nuisance to have to rebuild all your
>>> libraries, or have special paths for different compilers. Its the  
>>> same
>>> problem with those OSes that have combined 32 and 64 bit modes  
>>> (Irix,
>>> the more recent Linuxes for instance).
>>>
>>>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
>>>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
>>>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply  
>>>> could not
>>>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed, one of C++'s failings is the difficulty in learning how to
>>> program it correct (not withstanding Meyers's fine efforts in this
>>> regard). But _once_ you have learnt, you are every bit as productive
>>> as in other (presumably easier to learn) environments.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
>>>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
>>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
>>>>
>>>>      -- Owen
>>>
>>> I'll look at D one of these days. I'm waiting for it to develop a  
>>> level
>>> of maturity and adoption... I have been a committed C++  
>>> programmer for
>>> the last 14 years, but prior to that, I was a died-in-the-wool  
>>> Pascal
>>> programmer. I do switch for better languages, when significantly
>>> better alternatives exist. At present neither Java nor C# cut the
>>> mustard.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
>>> Mathematics                        
>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 13
>>> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:06:58 -0400
>>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
>>> Languages
>>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
>>> <friam at redfish.com>
>>> Message-ID:  
>>> <1186412818.19485.1203968337 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>> If pressed into a corner, I would say that C++ is not an OO  
>>> language at
>>> all - because the philosophy behind its creation is antithetical in
>>> important ways to the IDEA of objects.  Examples:
>>>
>>>    Simula is considered the first Object language (not Simula-68  
>>> which
>>>    was a programming language, not an object language like  
>>> Simula) and
>>>    its philosophical foundation was to create "natural" constructs
>>>    reflective of a problem domain that could be easily combined and
>>>    connected to solve problems - with zero concern about the machine
>>>    resources or performance efficiency required behind the  
>>> scenes.  In
>>>    contrast - Stroustrup explicitly and adamantly refused to allow
>>>    anything into C++ that would impair the speed of execution and
>>>    efficiency of machine utilization that was available in C.
>>>
>>>     Smalltalk - the exemplar object language (even though it is  
>>> really
>>>     class based and not object based like Self) had a similar
>>>     philosophical foundation - to allow exploratory, "natural," and
>>>     interactive dialog between domain experts (and children) and the
>>>     machine in pursuit of a problem solution - also with minimal  
>>> concern
>>>     for machine performance, the machine was supposed to do the  
>>> heavy
>>>     lifting, not the human.  The closest that C++ came to this  
>>> idea was
>>>     Stroustrup's intent to provide "discipline" to out of control C
>>>     programmers who prided themselves on how terse and  
>>> obfuscatory they
>>>     could make code that would still run and provide specified  
>>> results.
>>>     (they had annual contests dedicated to this endeavor and  
>>> probably
>>>     still do).
>>>
>>>    The object idea is fundamentally dependent on the concept that
>>>    EVERYTHING is an Object - and any language that enforces strong
>>>    typing violates this principle.
>>>
>>> Having said that - I would admit that C++ is indeed a Turing  
>>> machine and
>>> is therefore, at its core, cannot be differentiated from any other
>>> programming language and that it does provide some constructs  
>>> that allow
>>> a developer to construct objects (classes) and do object-like  
>>> coding -
>>> but doing so is very unnatural, uncomfortable, and "feels wrong."
>>>
>>> The idea of objects leads one to very different analytical (mostly
>>> decomposition) and design solutions than procedural or data-based
>>> thinking.  Given an object design it is very difficult to express  
>>> that
>>> design in C++ and trivial to express that design in Smalltalk.  
>>> (Ruby
>>> makes it easy to express the idea but does make it a bit more  
>>> difficult,
>>> but only because you have to ignore some non-relevant aspects of the
>>> language.)  Lisp - with CLOS,  Flavors and similar extensions -also
>>> makes it easier to express object design.
>>>
>>>
>>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
>>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
>>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
>>>> a fig
>>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I would be willing to bet that an individual proficient in  
>>> Smalltalk to
>>> the same degree as you are in C++ could develop almost any piece of
>>> software in 1/3 to 1/5 the time it took the C++ team, and with some
>>> minor tricks make it run in as small or smaller a footprint with an
>>> equal or lesser number of machine cycles.  I have consistently  
>>> seen it
>>> done.
>>>
>>> davew
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
>>>> Mathematics
>>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
>>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -------
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Friam mailing list
>>> Friam at redfish.com
>>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>>
>>>
>>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
>>> ************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070806/b39b9e98/attachment-0001.html 

[Phil Henshaw-2]

Dave,

I gather by saying that you mean the rationalizations people give you
are the main set of clues you have as to what they are going through in
their lives, etc., not that, like with quantum mechanics in Bohr's
interpretation, that since the rationalizations are all the information
you have then nothing else exists for you as a scientist... nor the
extension of that, that the patterns in their remarks are the cause of
the behaviors of the people whose remarks you are studying, right?    

Well, even if I guessed wrong on that, what if you happened to notice
patterns of developmental change in their rationalizations, that no one
had ever noticed before, and you were able to identify larger emerging
complex systems in their behavior that you could confirm from
independent sources of information.  Would that discovery of an
invisible direct causal process of change count as a legitimate subject
of study?

I ask that partly because I'm still thinking about that example of
Barabasi studying the inverse square distributions in the hub
distributions of the internet, and time and again explicitly attributing
the complex 'scale free' patterns being left behind in the wake of the
vibrant living systems that were busy inventing the web and producing
them, as being what caused the behavior of the living system that left
them behind...  a total reversal of instrumental causation as well as
the time sequence of events!!  His syntax is real clear on that, and
what's even more clear is even though he clearly sees the living system
producing the network patterns, it's the patterns he's interested in,
and the patterns do not lead him to examine the directly causal living
system, but only the reverse!

There is, of course, one very direct if tricky way that the patterns we
find left behind by the independent behaviors of the world actually do
cause those behaviors, in that they are our primary source of
information about the behaviors of the world, and are the direct cause
of our minds having any reliable connection with them, by directly
causing our images.   If we were to think our images were reality, then
it's perfectly reasonable to think that the information causing them was
the cause of the behaviors too, not only for people, but for everything
else too, and to never ask how that might work.  

The deep trouble comes when you seriously ask how that might work.
Learning how use information to lead you into exploring the presence of
diverse independent behaviors in causation, and the error in reading
that backwards, only becomes completely necessary when you begin to look
at the instrumental causes of individual events.  In part there is just
no other explanation for all the time lags and ordered but independent
developmental processes you find prolifically represented in individual
events, and far more satisfying explanations for them.   There's also a
stunning discovery to make of what happens to the quality of your own
questions when you turn the evidence of independent behaviors around to
help you watch exactly how they work rather than use information only to
'explain them away' as projections of static patterns they leave behind.


So I hope, though don't actually expect, that you read the
rationalizations people give you as being what they think they think,
and as a great source of questions for exposing and exploring their
independent behaviors.  The alternate is to use information as all you
have, and consider it a complete representation of your subjects, and
treat the patterns you find as what caused the behavior of the people
you study...  



Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040                      
tel: [phone]                
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----
> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 4:27 PM
> To: nickthompson at earthlink.net; The Friday Morning Applied
> ComplexityCoffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rationalilzations or Causes?
>
>
>
> True, but the rationalizations are the only things that are important.
>
> As a cultural anthropologist I am interested in building
> models of culture - complex non-deterministic models and
> rationalizations are the only data points that are useful.  
> Rationalizations provide some measure of insight into why
> people think they do what they do and these insights can be
> compared and contrasted with other aspects of culture
> (paraphrasing here, the complex whole that includes world
> view (metaphysics), values, practices, customs, and
> technology) to build models that are mildly explanatory and
> even mildly and statistically predictive.
>
> An anthropologist like Marvin Harris would be interested in
> causes - he explains Hindu behavior vis-a-vis cows in terms
> of calories available and the inevitable mass die off of
> Hindu's if they started to eat beef, or Yanomami violence
> also from the lack of available calories.  Dawkins (selfish
> gene) would also be interested in causes - but in his case
> there would only be one - a gene's desire to reproduce
> explains everything, including the most exotic sexual
> practice you could imagine.
>
> In a similar vein - Penthouse Letters provides a fascinating
> insight into what Americans think turns them on.  A
> statistical history of pages devoted to different topics
> shows some really interesting trends over the past twenty
> years - and not because anyone believes that the letters are
> "real" or that they reflect what people are actually doing -
> only in that they accurately reflect what readers think is
> exciting enough to read about that they would shell out the
> $6-10 to buy the magazine.
>
> davew
>
>

[Prof David West]

Some trends by topic - start of publication to 2006:
   for Penthouse Letters only - not letters in regular Penthouse
   magazine or other similar publications.
   percentages are average in any given issue, and may exceed 100% for
   that reason plus mixed topics in single letter.
   the raw data has much finer topic graduations, so I did a quick
   summary and rounded numbers.

man with two women - 60% - 10%
lesbianism - 15% - 15%
gay men - 2% - 6%
wife-swapping - 15% - 15%
bondage/discipline - 10% -5%
oral sex as part of scene - 30% - 100%
anal sex as part of scene - 5% - 50%
orgies - 10% - 30%
men watching wives have sex with multiple simultaneous partners - 0% -
60% (including annual wife-watching issue)

The flip between the percentages in the first and last topic is the most
interesting trend observed.  The reported age of participants in the
letters has increased from mid-twenties on average to early 40s on
average - paralleling the readership demographic which has gone from
early twenties to mid fifties, mostly male of course.





On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:10:23 -0600, "David Breecker"
<david at breeckerassociates.com> said:

> And then of course there is Dawkins' "Memes," some of which are  
> probably at work here.  At risk of sounding prurient... may we know a  
> bit about the Penthouse statistics and trends?
> db
>
> On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:27 PM, Prof David West wrote:
>
> >
> > True, but the rationalizations are the only things that are important.
> >
> > As a cultural anthropologist I am interested in building models of
> > culture - complex non-deterministic models and rationalizations are  
> > the
> > only data points that are useful.  Rationalizations provide some  
> > measure
> > of insight into why people think they do what they do and these  
> > insights
> > can be compared and contrasted with other aspects of culture
> > (paraphrasing here, the complex whole that includes world view
> > (metaphysics), values, practices, customs, and technology) to build
> > models that are mildly explanatory and even mildly and statistically
> > predictive.
> >
> > An anthropologist like Marvin Harris would be interested in causes  
> > - he
> > explains Hindu behavior vis-a-vis cows in terms of calories available
> > and the inevitable mass die off of Hindu's if they started to eat  
> > beef,
> > or Yanomami violence also from the lack of available calories.  
> > Dawkins
> > (selfish gene) would also be interested in causes - but in his case
> > there would only be one - a gene's desire to reproduce explains
> > everything, including the most exotic sexual practice you could  
> > imagine.
> >
> > In a similar vein - Penthouse Letters provides a fascinating insight
> > into what Americans think turns them on.  A statistical history of  
> > pages
> > devoted to different topics shows some really interesting trends over
> > the past twenty years - and not because anyone believes that the  
> > letters
> > are "real" or that they reflect what people are actually doing -  
> > only in
> > that they accurately reflect what readers think is exciting enough to
> > read about that they would shell out the $6-10 to buy the magazine.
> >
> > davew
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 13:47:01 -0600, "Nicholas Thompson"
> > <nickthompson at earthlink.net> said:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> While there may be an infinity of  RATIONALIZATIONS for sex, there  
> >> are
> >> probably relatively few CAUSES.  How many of you would actually  
> >> take at
> >> face value ANYONE'S account of why they wanted to have sex with you?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Nick
> >>
> >>
> >>> [Original Message]
> >>> From: <friam-request at redfish.com>
> >>> To: <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Date: 8/6/2007 10:03:00 AM
> >>> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> >>>
> >>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> >>> friam at redfish.com
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>> friam-request at redfish.com
> >>>
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>> friam-owner at redfish.com
> >>>
> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>>    1. The Verifier (Roger Critchlow)
> >>>    2. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> >>>    3. Re: The Verifier (Prof David West)
> >>>    4. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex] (Prof  
> >>> David West)
> >>>    5. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Prof David West)
> >>>    6. Re: [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> >>>       (Pamela McCorduck)
> >>>    7. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Douglas Roberts)
> >>>    8. Re: The Verifier (Phil Henshaw)
> >>>    9. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Russell Standish)
> >>>   10. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Owen Densmore)
> >>>   11. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Douglas Roberts)
> >>>   12. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Russell Standish)
> >>>   13. Re: O'Reilly -- The History of Programming Languages
> >>>       (Prof David West)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 10:46:58 -0600
> >>> From: "Roger Critchlow" <rec at elf.org>
> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <Friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <66d1c98f0708050946s5661f94dw31d905b8d2e5cf1e at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
> >>> cognitive
> >>> biases among groups of researchers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?
> >> ref=busine
> >> ss
> >>>
> >>> -- rec --
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
> >> 20070805/bc759113
> >> /attachment-0001.html
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 2
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400
> >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <001201c7d7ae$1d58f900$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches  
> >>> as keys
> >>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common  
> >>> bias of
> >>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the time  
> >>> lags
> >>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the  
> >>> discovery of
> >>> the independent developmental process that are functional  
> >>> necessities in
> >>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of  
> >>> entropy,
> >>> seems to requires the local development of individual self-
> >>> organizing
> >>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >>>
> >>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> >>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the  
> >>> topology of
> >>> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs changes
> >>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> >>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'  
> >>> distribution
> >>> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network  
> >>> adds
> >>> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to  
> >>> produce the
> >>> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct  
> >>> process
> >>> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what  
> >>> happens.
> >>> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the  
> >>> pattern as
> >>> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square  
> >>> distribution
> >>> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> >>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> >>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary  
> >>> process by
> >>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of  
> >>> things,...
> >>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how so  
> >>> many
> >>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at  
> >>> squarely and
> >>> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not  
> >>> fitting
> >>> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> >>> examination of the facts!
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our  
> >>> tools,
> >>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
> >>> patterns and
> >>> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns associated  
> >>> with
> >>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the  
> >>> purpose,
> >>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct  
> >>> causal
> >>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps consistently
> >>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior  
> >>> to not
> >>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our forbearers  
> >>> were
> >>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional tools  
> >>> were
> >>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> >>> NY NY 10040
> >>> tel: [phone]
> >>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> >>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-
> >>> bounces at redfish.com] On
> >>> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> >>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
> >>> cognitive
> >>> biases among groups of researchers.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.html?
> >>> ref=bu
> >>> siness
> >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
> >>> 05frame.html?ref=b
> >>> usiness>
> >>>
> >>> -- rec --
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
> >> 20070805/7f8b286c
> >> /attachment-0001.html
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 3
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:11:40 -0400
> >>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>> To: sy at synapse9.com, "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
> >>> Group" <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:  
> >>> <1186355500.13653.1203862307 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> An old book, but still interesting and relevant - Knorr-Certina, The
> >>> Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how science is really done and  
> >>> really
> >>> written about and biases, blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good  
> >>> complement
> >>> to the even older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> >>>
> >>> davew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> >>> said:
> >>>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy patches  
> >>>> as keys
> >>>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally common  
> >>>> bias of
> >>>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore the  
> >>>> time lags
> >>>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the  
> >>>> discovery of
> >>>> the independent developmental process that are functional  
> >>>> necessities in
> >>>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process of  
> >>>> entropy,
> >>>> seems to requires the local development of individual self-
> >>>> organizing
> >>>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying his
> >>>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in the  
> >>>> topology of
> >>>> networks, and how the distribution of densely connected hubs  
> >>>> changes
> >>>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> >>>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'  
> >>>> distribution
> >>>> of connections, as it has become called, develops as the network  
> >>>> adds
> >>>> and then abandons links (branching followed by selection) to  
> >>>> produce the
> >>>> final form, he attributes no causal contribution to the direct  
> >>>> process
> >>>> by which system producing the network develops, i.e. to what  
> >>>> happens.
> >>>> Instead he extremely consistently phrases the cause of the  
> >>>> pattern as
> >>>> being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse square  
> >>>> distribution
> >>>> of nodes with high degrees of connection, a statistical property
> >>>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> >>>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary  
> >>>> process by
> >>>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of  
> >>>> things,...
> >>>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning how  
> >>>> so many
> >>>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at  
> >>>> squarely and
> >>>> then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just not  
> >>>> fitting
> >>>> the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly observant
> >>>> examination of the facts!
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in our  
> >>>> tools,
> >>>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
> >>>> patterns and
> >>>> is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns  
> >>>> associated with
> >>>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for the  
> >>>> purpose,
> >>>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the direct  
> >>>> causal
> >>>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps  
> >>>> consistently
> >>>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the behavior  
> >>>> to not
> >>>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our  
> >>>> forbearers were
> >>>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional  
> >>>> tools were
> >>>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> >>>> NY NY 10040
> >>>> tel: [phone]
> >>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> >>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-
> >>>> bounces at redfish.com] On
> >>>> Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> >>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for  
> >>>> cognitive
> >>>> biases among groups of researchers.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
> >>>> 05frame.html?ref=bu
> >>>> siness
> >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/ 
> >>>> 05frame.html?ref=b
> >>>> usiness>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- rec --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 4
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:25:20 -0400
> >>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:  
> >>> <1186356320.15204.1203862957 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the  
> >>> researchers did
> >>> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals  
> >>> in this
> >>> group) who have sex as a:
> >>>
> >>> means to enlightenment
> >>> a yogic discipline
> >>> a way to experience unity with God
> >>> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> >>>
> >>> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting  
> >>> cultural
> >>> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a  
> >>> different set
> >>> of reasons than those included in the survey.
> >>>
> >>> davew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> >>> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> >>>> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I  
> >>>> had no
> >>>> idea
> >>>> there were 237 reasons.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >>>> droberts at rti.org
> >>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> >>>>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> >>>>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
> >>>>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> >>>>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> >>>>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> >>>>> WebMD Medical News
> >>>>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> *
> >>>>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the  
> >>>>> ways
> >> and
> >>>>> comes up with 237 reasons.
> >>>>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some  
> >>>>> motivations
> >>>>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> >>>>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> >>>>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> >>>>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> >>>>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD, of  
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin,  
> >>>>> Texas,
> >> to
> >>>>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men and
> >> women
> >>>>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other  
> >>>>> studies
> >> at
> >>>>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of Texas.
> >>>>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> >>>>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237  
> >>>>> reasons.
> >>>>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology  
> >>>>> students
> >>>>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex for  
> >>>>> each
> >> of
> >>>>> the 237 reasons.
> >>>>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize the
> >>>>> students' top reasons for having sex:
> >>>>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> >>>>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> >>>>>      3.     Expressing love
> >>>>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> >>>>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> >>>>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> >>>>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> >>>>>      8.     Mere opportunity
> >>>>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> >>>>> circumstances
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> >> frequently
> >>>>> cited by the students.
> >>>>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their  
> >>>>> partner,
> >>>>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,  
> >>>>> drugs,
> >>>>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> >> seemingly
> >>>>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex out of
> >> duty
> >>>>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and  
> >>>>> women have
> >>>>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> >>>>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> >>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>>>      3.     It feels good.
> >>>>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>>>      8.     It's fun.
> >>>>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
> >>>>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> >>>>> */
> >>>>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite  
> >>>>> similar to
> >>>>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> >>>>> according to the study:
> >>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>>>      2.     It feels good.
> >>>>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>>>      4.     It's fun.
> >>>>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> >>>>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on  
> >>>>> WebMD's
> >> Sexuality:
> >>>>> Friends Talking message board
> >>>>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.
> >>>>> 8959ee29>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August 2007;  
> >>>>> vol
> >> 36,
> >>>>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> **************************************
> >>>>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> >>>>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 5
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:31:12 -0400
> >>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:  
> >>> <1186356672.16367.1203864253 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
> >>> from this
> >>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
> >>> absent
> >>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason  
> >>> they
> >>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> >>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
> >>> language was
> >>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still have no
> >>> clue how to to OO.
> >>>
> >>> davew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson" <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >>> said:
> >>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >> evolution of
> >>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
> >>>> interest and
> >> did
> >>>> something about it.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
> >>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>>> The
> >>>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>>
> >>>> -- tj
> >>>>
> >>>> ==========================================
> >>>> J. T. Johnson
> >>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>>
> >>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>>                                                    --  
> >>>> Buckminster Fuller
> >>>> ==========================================
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 6
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 19:49:38 -0400
> >>> From: Pamela McCorduck <pamela at well.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [Fwd: Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex]
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <10aacf4b49e1ff295a6726c77d8c619d at well.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> >>>
> >>> Actually, "to become closer to God" was way up there on the list.  I
> >>> don't remember "a yogic discipline" as such making the list, but
> >>> certainly "exercise" did.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Prof David West wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would bet that I could extend the list - I am sure the  
> >>>> researchers
> >>>> did
> >>>> not talk to anyone (and there are a large number of individuals  
> >>>> in this
> >>>> group) who have sex as a:
> >>>>
> >>>> means to enlightenment
> >>>> a yogic discipline
> >>>> a way to experience unity with God
> >>>> to attain salvation by having sex with an individual alreay "saved"
> >>>>
> >>>> and a bunch of variations on these themes plus some interesting
> >>>> cultural
> >>>> differences in attitude and purpose for sex that lead to a  
> >>>> different
> >>>> set
> >>>> of reasons than those included in the survey.
> >>>>
> >>>> davew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 19:00:28 -0600, "Douglas Roberts"
> >>>> <doug at parrot-farm.net> said:
> >>>>> I find myself strangely ... aroused ... by this information.  I  
> >>>>> had no
> >>>>> idea
> >>>>> there were 237 reasons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >>>>> droberts at rti.org
> >>>>> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 8/2/07, Merle Lefkoff <merle at arspublica.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>>>>> Subject:        Fwd - 237 reasons why people have sex
> >>>>>> Date:   Thu, 2 Aug 2007 07:18:24 EDT
> >>>>>> From:   JerSol at aol.com
> >>>>>> To:     undisclosed-recipients:;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /*Why People Have Sex: 237 Reasons
> >>>>>> *// Love, Lust, Revenge -- Researchers' List Goes On and On
> >>>>>> By Miranda Hitti <http://www.webmd.com/Miranda-Hitti>
> >>>>>> WebMD Medical News
> >>>>>> Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD <http://www.webmd.com/Louise-Chang>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /*
> >>>>>> *
> >>>>>> Aug. 1, 2007 -- Why do people have sex? A new study counts the  
> >>>>>> ways
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> comes up with 237 reasons.
> >>>>>> The reasons range from the sublime to the scandalous. Some
> >>>>>> motivations
> >>>>>> came from the heart. Others came from elsewhere in the anatomy.
> >>>>>> The leading reason for sex was, "I was attracted to the person,"
> >>>>>> according to the study, which appears in the August issue of the/
> >>>>>> Archives of Sexual Behavior/.
> >>>>>> The study comes from Cindy Meston, PhD, and David Buss, PhD,  
> >>>>>> of the
> >>>>>> psychology department at the University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>>>> First, they asked 203 men and 241 women aged 17-52 in Austin,  
> >>>>>> Texas,
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> anonymously list every reason they had ever had sex. Those men  
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> women
> >>>>>> were taking psychology classes or were participating in other
> >>>>>> studies at
> >>>>>> the Sexual Psychophysiology Laboratory of the University of  
> >>>>>> Texas.
> >>>>>> All in all, participants listed 715 reasons for having sex. The
> >>>>>> researchers deleted repetitions, boiling the list down to 237
> >>>>>> reasons.
> >>>>>> Next, Meston and Buss presented the list to 1,549 psychology  
> >>>>>> students
> >>>>>> and asked them to rate how often, if ever, they had had sex  
> >>>>>> for each
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> the 237 reasons.
> >>>>>> /* 9 Leading Reasons for Having Sex
> >>>>>> */
> >>>>>> The researchers identified nine broad themes that characterize  
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> students' top reasons for having sex:
> >>>>>>      1.     Pure attraction to the other person in general
> >>>>>>      2.     Experiencing physical pleasure
> >>>>>>      3.     Expressing love
> >>>>>>      4.     Having sex because of feeling desired by the other
> >>>>>>      5.     Having sex to escalate the depth of the relationship
> >>>>>>      6.     Curiosity or seeking new experiences
> >>>>>>      7.     Marking a special occasion for celebration
> >>>>>>      8.     Mere opportunity
> >>>>>>      9.     Sex just happening due to seemingly uncontrollable
> >>>>>> circumstances
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The study also highlights five general themes that were least
> >>>>>> frequently
> >>>>>> cited by the students.
> >>>>>> Those themes included wanting to harm another person (their  
> >>>>>> partner,
> >>>>>> rival, or a stranger), getting resources (such as a job, money,
> >>>>>> drugs,
> >>>>>> or gifts), enhancing social status, using sex as a means to a
> >>>>>> seemingly
> >>>>>> unrelated end (such as relieving a headache), or having sex  
> >>>>>> out of
> >>>>>> duty
> >>>>>> or pressure./* Top 10 Reasons Why Women Have Sex
> >>>>>> */
> >>>>>> The researchers broke down the leading reasons why men and  
> >>>>>> women have
> >>>>>> sex. Eight of the top 10 reasons were shared by men and women.
> >>>>>> Here are women's top 10 reasons for having sex:
> >>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>>>>      2.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>>>>      3.     It feels good.
> >>>>>>      4.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>>>>      5.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>>>>      8.     It's fun.
> >>>>>>      9.     I realized I was in love.
> >>>>>>      10.     I was "in the heat of the moment."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /* Top 10 Reasons Why Men Have Sex
> >>>>>> */
> >>>>>> In the study, men's top 10 reasons for having sex are quite  
> >>>>>> similar
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> the women's list. Here are men's top 10 reasons for having sex,
> >>>>>> according to the study:
> >>>>>>      1.     I was attracted to the person.
> >>>>>>      2.     It feels good.
> >>>>>>      3.     I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
> >>>>>>      4.     It's fun.
> >>>>>>      5.     I wanted to show my affection to the person.
> >>>>>>      6.     I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
> >>>>>>      7.     I was "horny."
> >>>>>>      8.     I wanted to express my love for the person.
> >>>>>>      9.     I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
> >>>>>>      10.     I wanted to please my partner.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>      &#8226;     Why do you have sex? Share your reasons on  
> >>>>>> WebMD's
> >>>>>> Sexuality:
> >>>>>> Friends Talking message board
> >>>>>> <http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.8959ee29%21thdchild=.
> >>>>>> 8959ee29>.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> SOURCES: Meston, C./ Archives of Sexual Behavior/, August  
> >>>>>> 2007; vol
> >>>>>> 36,
> >>>>>> pp 477-507. News release, University of Texas at Austin.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> **************************************
> >>>>>> Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
> >>>>>> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Where words prevail not, violence reigns..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thomas Kyd
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 7
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 18:04:21 -0600
> >>> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <f16528920708051704k7e933c8dr835770886b92ddf8 at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>> As one who lived inside a LISP machine for years, and worked  
> >>> extensively
> >>> building large OO-based applications using Loops, Flavors, CLOS,  
> >>> and KEE
> >>> prior to the birth of C++, I pride myself on being a member of  
> >>> that elite
> >>> 2%.
> >>>
> >>> I just wish I could get my fellow SW developers to agree with me.
> >>>
> >>> ;-}
> >>>
> >>> --Doug
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >>> droberts at rti.org
> >>> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >>> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>>
> >>> On 8/5/07, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
> >>>> from this
> >>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
> >>>> absent
> >>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only  
> >>>> reason they
> >>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> >>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
> >>>> language was
> >>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
> >>>> have no
> >>>> clue how to to OO.
> >>>>
> >>>> davew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
> >>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >>>> said:
> >>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >>>> evolution of
> >>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
> >>>>> interest and
> >>>> did
> >>>>> something about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
> >>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- tj
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>> J. T. Johnson
> >>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>>>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
> >> Fuller
> >>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
> >> 20070805/1cafd975
> >> /attachment-0001.html
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 8
> >>> Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:30:53 -0400
> >>> From: "Phil Henshaw" <sy at synapse9.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>> To: "'Prof David West'" <profwest at fastmail.fm>, "'The Friday Morning
> >>> Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <002a01c7d7c1$0c5c1610$2f01a8c0 at SavyII>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the Feyerabend reference, but geel whiz... Knorr-
> >>> Certina's
> >>> "The Manufacture of Knowledge" is $349.95, on Amazon, used! and  
> >>> only one
> >>> copy.  but in French it's only $25 bucks!    Hey should I snap it  
> >>> up?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> >>> NY NY 10040
> >>> tel: [phone]
> >>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> >>> explorations: www.synapse9.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Prof David West [mailto:profwest at fastmail.fm]
> >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 7:12 PM
> >>>> To: sy at synapse9.com; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> >>>> Coffee Group
> >>>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> An old book, but still interesting and relevant -
> >>>> Knorr-Certina, The Manufacture of Knowledge, looks at how
> >>>> science is really done and really written about and biases,
> >>>> blind-spots, and paradigms.  A good complement to the even
> >>>> older work of Paul Feyerabend.
> >>>>
> >>>> davew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 18:15:18 -0400, "Phil Henshaw"  
> >>>> <sy at synapse9.com>
> >>>> said:
> >>>>> I see those biases a lot, and use finding my own sloppy
> >>>> patches as keys
> >>>>> to where I'll discover new things.    One exceptionally
> >>>> common bias of
> >>>>> current interest is the tendency of scientists to ignore
> >>>> the time lags
> >>>>> between cause and effect, that when not ignored lead to the
> >>>> discovery
> >>>>> of the independent developmental process that are
> >>>> functional necessities in
> >>>>> the occurrence of the response.   An example?   Any process
> >>>> of entropy,
> >>>>> seems to requires the local development of individual
> >>>> self-organizing
> >>>>> complex systems to carry it out, and when you look you find them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've been reading 'Linked' by Barabasi, and thoroughly enjoying  
> >>>>> his
> >>>>> insightful discoveries of telling structural patterns in
> >>>> the topology
> >>>>> of networks, and how the distribution of densely connected
> >>>> hubs changes
> >>>>> network behaviors entirely, among other things.   What's totally
> >>>>> remarkable is that despite observing that this 'scale free'
> >>>>> distribution of connections, as it has become called,
> >>>> develops as the
> >>>>> network adds and then abandons links (branching followed by
> >>>> selection)
> >>>>> to produce the final form, he attributes no causal
> >>>> contribution to the
> >>>>> direct process by which system producing the network
> >>>> develops, i.e. to
> >>>>> what happens. Instead he extremely consistently phrases the
> >>>> cause of
> >>>>> the pattern as being the benchmark indicator of having an inverse
> >>>>> square distribution of nodes with high degrees of
> >>>> connection, a statistical property
> >>>>> discovered after the fact.   I'm going page after page after page
> >>>>> wondering when is he ever going to credit the evolutionary
> >>>> process by
> >>>>> which the pattern develops in the overall causal scheme of
> >>>> things,...
> >>>>> and the answer seems to be, well, never!!    It's stunning
> >>>> how so many
> >>>>> hugely productive insights are so obviously being looked at
> >>>> squarely
> >>>>> and then skipped over again and again and again, evidently just  
> >>>>> not
> >>>>> fitting the question and purpose of his otherwise brilliantly
> >>>>> observant examination of the facts!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm wondering if the blind spot this exposes is embedded in
> >>>> our tools,
> >>>>> since he obviously sees the actual behaviors producing the  
> >>>>> patterns
> >>>>> and is very creative in identifying the resultant patterns
> >>>> associated with
> >>>>> them, but is just not drawn to studying them.   If used for
> >>>> the purpose,
> >>>>> these same patterns would lead us to investigate how the
> >>>> direct causal
> >>>>> mechanisms do actually operate, in detail, but he keeps
> >>>> consistently
> >>>>> declaring the resultant pattern to be the cause and the
> >>>> behavior to not
> >>>>> exist.    Just g.d. remarkable!   Could it be that our
> >>>> forbearers were
> >>>>> just so totally obsessed with control, that our traditional
> >>>> tools were
> >>>>> built in a way that can't describe anything else?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Phil Henshaw                       ????.?? ? `?.????
> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >>>>> 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> >>>>> NY NY 10040
> >>>>> tel: [phone]
> >>>>> e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
> >>>>> explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com
> >>>> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
> >>>>> Behalf Of Roger
> >>>> Critchlow
> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 12:47 PM
> >>>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>>>> Subject: [FRIAM] The Verifier
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's an article about a kind of meta-analysis that looks for
> >>>>> cognitive biases among groups of researchers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/you>
> >>> rmoney/05frame.html?ref=
> >>>>> bu
> >>>>> siness
> >>>>>
> >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/business/yourmoney/05frame.
> >>> html?ref=b
> >>>> usiness>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- rec --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 9
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 20:07:23 +1000
> >>> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <20070805100723.GS3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>>
> >>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
> >>> that it
> >>> isn't an OO language at all?
> >>>
> >>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> >>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> >>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >>>
> >>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "->",  
> >>> "[]"
> >>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> >>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and picked
> >>> up by the compiler immediately.
> >>>
> >>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >>>
> >>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> >>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> >>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> >>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> >>> different compilers.
> >>>
> >>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> >>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> >>> users.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
> >>> comes
> >>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming style. It
> >>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule "no  
> >>> bare
> >>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> >>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> >>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
> >>> access
> >>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
> >>> type), and
> >>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your code  
> >>> has
> >>> been fully debugged.
> >>>
> >>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> >>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> >>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
> >>> a fig
> >>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
> >>>> from this
> >>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
> >>>> absent
> >>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only  
> >>>> reason they
> >>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because programmers
> >>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a  
> >>>> language was
> >>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
> >>>> have no
> >>>> clue how to to OO.
> >>>>
> >>>> davew
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
> >>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >>>> said:
> >>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >> evolution of
> >>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
> >>>>> interest and
> >> did
> >>>>> something about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/ 
> >>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>>>> The
> >>>>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -- tj
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>> J. T. Johnson
> >>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>>>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
> >> Fuller
> >>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> >>> Mathematics                        
> >>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> >>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 10
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:45:23 -0600
> >>> From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <71997FD4-7BF4-4BC3-9611-130050328C64 at backspaces.net>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
> >>>
> >>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This was in
> >>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >>>
> >>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> >>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
> >>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in C++
> >>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
> >>> projects to
> >>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> >>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
> >>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >>>
> >>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> >>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> >>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply could  
> >>> not
> >>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >>>
> >>> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like the
> >>> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C wrapper
> >>> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> >>> implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
> >>> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> >>> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
> >>> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> >>> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no  
> >>> cost.
> >>>
> >>> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> >>> really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> >>> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero decided to
> >>> do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> >>>
> >>> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> >>> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> >>> dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> >>>
> >>> I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
> >>> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying: But
> >>> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
> >>> sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle trying to
> >>> guide folks around the horrors.
> >>>
> >>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
> >>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >>>
> >>>      -- Owen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
> >>>> that it
> >>>> isn't an OO language at all?
> >>>>
> >>>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> >>>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> >>>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "-
> >>>> >", "[]"
> >>>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> >>>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and  
> >>>> picked
> >>>> up by the compiler immediately.
> >>>>
> >>>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >>>>
> >>>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem - the
> >>>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> >>>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> >>>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> >>>> different compilers.
> >>>>
> >>>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> >>>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to novice
> >>>> users.
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
> >>>> comes
> >>>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming  
> >>>> style. It
> >>>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule  
> >>>> "no bare
> >>>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> >>>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> >>>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
> >>>> access
> >>>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
> >>>> type), and
> >>>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your  
> >>>> code has
> >>>> been fully debugged.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> >>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> >>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
> >>>> a fig
> >>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material from
> >>>>> this
> >>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
> >>>>> absent
> >>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because  
> >>>>> programmers
> >>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> >>>>> language was
> >>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
> >>>>> have no
> >>>>> clue how to to OO.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> davew
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
> >>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >>>>> said:
> >>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >>>>>>> evolution of
> >>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our interest
> >>>>>> and did
> >>>>>> something about it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> >>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>>>>> The
> >>>>>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -- tj
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>>> J. T. Johnson
> >>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>>>>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>>>>                                                    -- Buckminster
> >>>>>> Fuller
> >>>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>> ------
> >>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> >>>> Mathematics                        
> >>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> >>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> ---
> >>>> ------
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 11
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 22:01:15 -0600
> >>> From: "Douglas Roberts" <doug at parrot-farm.net>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:
> >>> <f16528920708052101t73150256y1c99667b6c950477 at mail.gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>> Interesting, Owen.  I'm curious what some of D's features will  
> >>> result in,
> >>> performance-wise.  Particularly garbage collection, and the single
> >>> inheritance hierarchy.
> >>>
> >>> --Doug
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Doug Roberts, RTI International
> >>> droberts at rti.org
> >>> doug at parrot-farm.net
> >>> 505-455-7333 - Office
> >>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >>>
> >>> On 8/5/07, Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This  
> >>>> was in
> >>>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> >>>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
> >>>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in  
> >>>> C++
> >>>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
> >>>> projects to
> >>>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> >>>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
> >>>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >>>>
> >>>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> >>>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> >>>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply  
> >>>> could not
> >>>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >>>>
> >>>> So Sun decided it was fine to use C++ in isolation.  Groups like  
> >>>> the
> >>>> multi media group I headed up for a few years decided on a C  
> >>>> wrapper
> >>>> around a fairly complicated "delegation" system, separating the
> >>>> implementation from the interface.  At the time it was the only way
> >>>> to do so -- header files simply exposed too much of the
> >>>> implementation and fouled up our agile programming techniques.  It
> >>>> also had the advantage of making GC simpler: a trivial ref counted
> >>>> system allowed course grained GC to work very well at nearly no  
> >>>> cost.
> >>>>
> >>>> This idea of C wrappers became the corporate standard, and folks
> >>>> really loved it.  (Interesting enough, we *did* allow projects to
> >>>> interface to other project's C++ if they wanted to.  Zero  
> >>>> decided to
> >>>> do so.  Just memory management could not be agreed upon.)
> >>>>
> >>>> This was a sorta win-win situation: groups could use C++ in
> >>>> isolation, but customers did not have to adapt our protocols and
> >>>> dialects.  And it all worked fine with binary shared libraries.
> >>>>
> >>>> I presume all this has been cleaned up.  But I remember a long
> >>>> conversation with Bjarne Stroustrup, who finally gave up saying:  
> >>>> But
> >>>> its not SUPPOSED to be a great OO system, just a better C++.  Not
> >>>> sure its there yet.  Scott Meyers is still making a bundle  
> >>>> trying to
> >>>> guide folks around the horrors.
> >>>>
> >>>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
> >>>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >>>>
> >>>>      -- Owen
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> C++ is not just an OO language, obviously, but are you saying  
> >>>>> that it
> >>>>> isn't an OO language at all?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I use C++ extensively, and use it procedurally, functionally,
> >>>>> object-orientedly, generically, and often a mixture of all of the
> >>>>> above, as appropriate for the problem at hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm aware of C++ negative points (confusion between "." and "-
> >>>>> >", "[]"
> >>>>> and "()", ";" needed after class defintions, but not function or
> >>>>> namespace definitions), but all of these are superficial, and  
> >>>>> picked
> >>>>> up by the compiler immediately.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More significant C++ deficiencies...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Generic programming (ie templates) is a bit more of a problem -  
> >>>>> the
> >>>>> standard makes the inheritance model somewhat unintuitive. And
> >>>>> different compilers seem to interpret the standard differently,
> >>>>> meaning one needs to test all advanced template code carefully on
> >>>>> different compilers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But having said that, using basic generic capability equivalent to
> >>>>> what Java or C# offers, is unproblematic, and useful even to  
> >>>>> novice
> >>>>> users.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Finally, there is the renowned memory management problems. This  
> >>>>> comes
> >>>>> from trying to program C++ using a Java or a C programming  
> >>>>> style. It
> >>>>> is simple to avoid all such problems by using the simple rule  
> >>>>> "no bare
> >>>>> pointers". Use a container, or a reference type (either the static
> >>>>> built in type, or one of the dynamic reference types available in
> >>>>> boost and/or TR1). The only reasons to use bare pointers is for  
> >>>>> access
> >>>>> to legacy APIs (in which case you should wrap it into a C++  
> >>>>> type), and
> >>>>> for performance reasons, which you should only do after your  
> >>>>> code has
> >>>>> been fully debugged.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> >>>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> >>>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't  
> >>>>> give a fig
> >>>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 07:31:12PM -0400, Prof David West wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my book - Object Thinking - I referenced a lot of material  
> >>>>>> from
> >>>>>> this
> >>>>>> series of books re: Simula, Smalltalk, and C++ (Java was still  
> >>>>>> absent
> >>>>>> from the books) to make the point that a lot of so-called object
> >>>>>> languages were never intended to be such and that the only reason
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> made the claim was for marketing purposes.  And because  
> >>>>>> programmers
> >>>>>> failed to see why the history, purpose, and philosophy of a
> >>>>>> language was
> >>>>>> relevant to using the language, 98% of the programmers still  
> >>>>>> have no
> >>>>>> clue how to to OO.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> davew
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0600, "Tom Johnson"  
> >>>>>> <tom at jtjohnson.com>
> >>>>>> said:
> >>>>>>>> From time to time, some of us have expressed an interest in the
> >>>>>>>> evolution of
> >>>>>>> various computer languages.  Turns our others shared our  
> >>>>>>> interest
> >>>>>>> and did
> >>>>>>> something about it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/news/
> >>>>>>> languageposter_0504.html ---
> >>>>>>> The
> >>>>>>> History of Programming Languages
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- tj
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>>>> J. T. Johnson
> >>>>>>> Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
> >>>>>>> www.analyticjournalism.com
> >>>>>>> 505.577.6482(c)                                 505.473.9646(h)
> >>>>>>> http://www.jtjohnson.com                 tom at jtjohnson.us
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
> >>>>>>> To change something, build a new model that makes the
> >>>>>>> existing model obsolete."
> >>>>>>>                                                    --  
> >>>>>>> Buckminster
> >>>>>>> Fuller
> >>>>>>> ==========================================
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> ------
> >>>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone]  
> >>>>> (mobile)
> >>>>> Mathematics
> >>>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                       hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> >>>>> Australia                                http://
> >>>>> www.hpcoders.com.au
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> ----
> >>>>> ------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ============================================================
> >>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>>
> >>> -------------- next part --------------
> >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >>> URL:
> >> http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/ 
> >> 20070805/78bc6ac5
> >> /attachment-0001.html
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 12
> >>> Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 21:50:44 +1000
> >>> From: Russell Standish <r.standish at unsw.edu.au>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID: <20070805115044.GU3315 at hells-dell.localdomain>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Aug 05, 2007 at 09:45:23PM -0600, Owen Densmore wrote:
> >>>> Sun made use of C++ API's (that customers see) illegal.  This  
> >>>> was in
> >>>> the 1995-2000 time frame.
> >>>>
> >>>> This was mainly because there was not a good binary standard for
> >>>> shared libraries at that time that used C++.  Also, it turned out
> >>>> that there were a few studies done about software engineering in  
> >>>> C++
> >>>> being a failure -- it just took too much time for various  
> >>>> projects to
> >>>> agree on their dialect.  Basically C++ at the time simply had too
> >>>> many ways to do the same thing.  Even constructors had oddly
> >>>> differing syntax and slightly different semantics.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The ABI issue is still with us. Its less of a problem in the open
> >>> source world (you just compile all your C++ libraries with the
> >>> compiler you want to use), than in the close source world, but if
> >>> you're in the habit of switching compilers regularly (I often switch
> >>> between gcc and icc), it is a nuisance to have to rebuild all your
> >>> libraries, or have special paths for different compilers. Its the  
> >>> same
> >>> problem with those OSes that have combined 32 and 64 bit modes  
> >>> (Irix,
> >>> the more recent Linuxes for instance).
> >>>
> >>>> The Scott Meyers book "Effective C++: 55 Specific Ways to Improve
> >>>> Your Programs and Designs" .. or as we called it "55 ways not to
> >>>> shoot yourself in the foot" was the final proof.  We simply  
> >>>> could not
> >>>> agree on what the hell all the issues were.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Indeed, one of C++'s failings is the difficulty in learning how to
> >>> program it correct (not withstanding Meyers's fine efforts in this
> >>> regard). But _once_ you have learnt, you are every bit as productive
> >>> as in other (presumably easier to learn) environments.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> HOWEVER: There is hope.  Look at the D language, for something that
> >>>> may actually solve all the C++ problems!  Here's the usual pointer:
> >>>>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_programming_language
> >>>>
> >>>>      -- Owen
> >>>
> >>> I'll look at D one of these days. I'm waiting for it to develop a  
> >>> level
> >>> of maturity and adoption... I have been a committed C++  
> >>> programmer for
> >>> the last 14 years, but prior to that, I was a died-in-the-wool  
> >>> Pascal
> >>> programmer. I do switch for better languages, when significantly
> >>> better alternatives exist. At present neither Java nor C# cut the
> >>> mustard.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> >>> Mathematics                        
> >>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                 hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> >>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 13
> >>> Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:06:58 -0400
> >>> From: "Prof David West" <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> >>> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] O'Reilly -- The History of Programming  
> >>> Languages
> >>> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> >>> <friam at redfish.com>
> >>> Message-ID:  
> >>> <1186412818.19485.1203968337 at webmail.messagingengine.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If pressed into a corner, I would say that C++ is not an OO  
> >>> language at
> >>> all - because the philosophy behind its creation is antithetical in
> >>> important ways to the IDEA of objects.  Examples:
> >>>
> >>>    Simula is considered the first Object language (not Simula-68  
> >>> which
> >>>    was a programming language, not an object language like  
> >>> Simula) and
> >>>    its philosophical foundation was to create "natural" constructs
> >>>    reflective of a problem domain that could be easily combined and
> >>>    connected to solve problems - with zero concern about the machine
> >>>    resources or performance efficiency required behind the  
> >>> scenes.  In
> >>>    contrast - Stroustrup explicitly and adamantly refused to allow
> >>>    anything into C++ that would impair the speed of execution and
> >>>    efficiency of machine utilization that was available in C.
> >>>
> >>>     Smalltalk - the exemplar object language (even though it is  
> >>> really
> >>>     class based and not object based like Self) had a similar
> >>>     philosophical foundation - to allow exploratory, "natural," and
> >>>     interactive dialog between domain experts (and children) and the
> >>>     machine in pursuit of a problem solution - also with minimal  
> >>> concern
> >>>     for machine performance, the machine was supposed to do the  
> >>> heavy
> >>>     lifting, not the human.  The closest that C++ came to this  
> >>> idea was
> >>>     Stroustrup's intent to provide "discipline" to out of control C
> >>>     programmers who prided themselves on how terse and  
> >>> obfuscatory they
> >>>     could make code that would still run and provide specified  
> >>> results.
> >>>     (they had annual contests dedicated to this endeavor and  
> >>> probably
> >>>     still do).
> >>>
> >>>    The object idea is fundamentally dependent on the concept that
> >>>    EVERYTHING is an Object - and any language that enforces strong
> >>>    typing violates this principle.
> >>>
> >>> Having said that - I would admit that C++ is indeed a Turing  
> >>> machine and
> >>> is therefore, at its core, cannot be differentiated from any other
> >>> programming language and that it does provide some constructs  
> >>> that allow
> >>> a developer to construct objects (classes) and do object-like  
> >>> coding -
> >>> but doing so is very unnatural, uncomfortable, and "feels wrong."
> >>>
> >>> The idea of objects leads one to very different analytical (mostly
> >>> decomposition) and design solutions than procedural or data-based
> >>> thinking.  Given an object design it is very difficult to express  
> >>> that
> >>> design in C++ and trivial to express that design in Smalltalk.  
> >>> (Ruby
> >>> makes it easy to express the idea but does make it a bit more  
> >>> difficult,
> >>> but only because you have to ignore some non-relevant aspects of the
> >>> language.)  Lisp - with CLOS,  Flavors and similar extensions -also
> >>> makes it easier to express object design.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> But I would still say that C++ gives me the ability to build more
> >>>> complex code, more efficiently, in about a similar or even reduced
> >>>> development time to other competitive languages. I couldn't give  
> >>>> a fig
> >>>> whether it follows a pure OO model or not.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I would be willing to bet that an individual proficient in  
> >>> Smalltalk to
> >>> the same degree as you are in C++ could develop almost any piece of
> >>> software in 1/3 to 1/5 the time it took the C++ team, and with some
> >>> minor tricks make it run in as small or smaller a footprint with an
> >>> equal or lesser number of machine cycles.  I have consistently  
> >>> seen it
> >>> done.
> >>>
> >>> davew
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>>> A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone [phone] (mobile)
> >>>> Mathematics
> >>>> UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpcoder at hpcoders.com.au
> >>>> Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> >>>>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -------
> >>>>
> >>>> ============================================================
> >>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Friam mailing list
> >>> Friam at redfish.com
> >>> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> End of Friam Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
> >>> ************************************
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
>
> dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
> Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
> Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
> www.BreeckerAssociates.com
>
>
>