Re: CoBOL moved to OO
From: Peter E.C. Dashwood (dashwood_at_enternet.co.nz)
Date: 12/24/03
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: Interaction with office programs"
- Previous message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:33:45 +1300
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:8c4fc40322b80ab862b4248ce69c7bb9@news.teranews.com...
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > I remember similar resistance to Djykstra's paper when it was first
> > published..."What?! The whole of computer programming can be resolved
down
> > to THREE operations?!!! Rubbish!!".
>
> Which paper is that? Dijkstra's famous "Go To Statement Considered
> Harmful" paper? It was Alan Turing, IIRC, that defined the minimum
> necessary instructions for computability.
No, I was confused. It was Boehm & Jacopini's paper in 1966 that
established the three operations I was referring to . My confusion arose
because they also did some work on "GOTO-less" programming at around the
same time as Dijkstra. That was what I recalled and incorrectly assigned to
Dijkstra.
Pete.
- Next message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: Interaction with office programs"
- Previous message: Peter E.C. Dashwood: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- In reply to: Judson McClendon: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Next in thread: Doug Scott: "Re: CoBOL moved to OO"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]