General talk about software patterns

["Mike Beedle" <beedlem AT e-architects.com>]

> I vote that the whole thing is a colossal crock.

Dan:

I didn't like the fact that they don't reference previous
art, like other on-going similar projects dating back
to 30 years.  But I liked the interest in making
this a "Grand Challenge", like the Genome project.


> I found this statement both enlightening and amusing:
> "'In 20 years time perhaps all computer systems 
> will be built on a theory that is understood. 
> We are trying to establish these theories.' "

The quote as I understood it was only related to
one of the projects:

        2. Science for Global Ubiquitous Computing 

> But "theory" implies a mathematical solution. 

I disagree.  Theories are explanations sometimes
backed up with empirical data.  They can be mathematical
or not.

> Is there a single new "theory" that mathematics has 
> added in the past 40 years for the benefit of 
> understanding computing? 

I would say yes, for example Grenander's General Pattern Theory.

Its applicability extends _all_ domains from visual
pattern recognition, language, medical, software ... 
you name it.

But there are many others, of course.


> It seems to me that if progress toward understanding 
> computer systems will be made in the next twenty years 
> that progress will begin when a community of users 
> gets their fossilized mathematical reasoning about 
> "theories" out of the way. 

Well, I agree with this.  But I think including
biomimetic or even biological theories (that are
not necessarily mathematical), is a good start.


> The computer is a social science problem. Social 
> science must deal with decision control. 

I don't know if the "computer" is a social science
problem, but I would agree that Software Development 
is mostly a social problem. 

> What mathematical theorem will withstand the need 
> for a proof that tests for how you or I will decide 
> to behave tomorrow? Or, for that matter, to test 
> for what laws you or I might decide to enforce on 
> other people's behavior?

Localized Nash Equilibriums constrained by common laws?

You can probably call this an imposed "moral imperative" :-)

- Mike