NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/org/eff/talk/8290

Text File | 1993-01-04 | 2.7 KB | 54 lines

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!panther!mothost!lmpsbbs!areaplg2.corp.mot.com!bhv
From: [e-mail] (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Programmers and Libertarians (was: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:43:24 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <bhayden.726020062@teal> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37
Lines: 41

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick Nielsen-Hayden) writes:
)[e-mail] (Hans Lachman) writes:
)
)>My guess is that the correlation between programmers and
)>Libertarians is due to the fact that programmers (the smart
)>ones at least) keenly understand the KISS principle (Keep
)>It Simple, Stupid).

...

)Analogies between engineering & politics like the above have a checkered
)history, to say the least.  For much of the first part of this century it
)was widely assumed that Communism more precisely mapped onto the principles
)of design efficiency espoused by technologists; in fact, many
)anti-communists granted their antagonists the point, and anchored their
)opposition in a wider critique of technological rationalism in general.
)These days both sides of that argument seem quaint.  The day will come when
)the above reads like a period piece, too.

IMO the analogy between programs and society is stronger than the analogy
between machines in general and society.

In the ACM a fairly long time ago, Djykstra (I think) wrote an essay on
how computer programming was a fundamental novelty.  I think he was wrong -
I think the aspect of programming he mentioned (a large unit made up
of very large - up to billions - of smaller general units) fits an aspect
of society.  To be specific, hierarchy of some sort has been found to be
necessary to organize such large structures - either large programs or large
societies.  For smaller societies (and programs) hierarchy is not so
essential.

This analogy is not absolutely perfect, of course.  But I think some of
the parallels are provocative.

Some of the 'best' programs are written by a single person, and some of
the 'best' societies are led by one person.  And, some of the worst
programs and societyes are written/led by one person - there is a large
variability.  A design by comittee (either of a program or of a society)
tends to be clunky and inefficient compared to the best of individual
designs, but much better than the truly awful messes created by the
bad designs of a single individual.