Notes on “Things A Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About”

I picked up “Things A Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About” by Donald Knuth at Barnes & Noble a couple weeks back on a whim after spending 45 minutes looking through the fascinating science/technology section at the back of the Natick store. (sidenote: some Barnes and Nobles have fabulous science/technology/computer science/engineering sections with rows and rows of books… and some have “JavaScript for Dummies”. Why is that?)

It’s not a book about computer science but is rather the transcribed text of his series of public lectures about interactions between faith and computer science (which you can view online). Couple quotes I deemed noteworthy for one reason or another:

· On page 28 he talks about he how he used randomization when grading papers while teaching at Stanford. Reminder to read up on “zero knowledge proofs” sometime.

· The basis of his lectures was a book he wrote called “3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated” which aimed to gain an understanding into the Bible by taking 59 random snapshots (verses) and studying them in detail. His son was inspired indirectly by this book: “… to start up the H-20 project, which is designed to answer the question ‘What is Massachusetts?’ … He and my daughter have a book of maps of Massachusetts at a large scale; they live fairly near campus, at coordinates H-20 in the relevant map of Cambridge. So they’re going to try and visit H-20 on all the other pages of their book. That should give terrific insights into the real nature of Massachusetts.

· on learning: “… I learned that the absolute best way to find out what you don’t understand is to try to express something in your own words. If I had been operating only in input mode, looking at other translations but not actually trying to output the thoughts they expressed, I would never have come to grips with the many shades of meaning that lurk just below the surface. In fact, I would never have realized that such shades of meaning even exist, if I had just been inputting. The exercise of producing output, trying to make a good translation by yourself, is a tremendous help to your education.

· A quote from Peter Gomes at the beginning of his book called “The Good Book“: “… The notion that [the texts of the Bible] have meaning and integrity, intention, contexts and subtexts, and that they are part of an enormous history of interpretation that has long involved some of the greatest thinkers in the history of the world, is a notion often lost on those for whom the text is just one more of the many means the church provides to massage the egos of its members.

· One of the questions asked about Douglas Hofstadter’s book “Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language“.

· “My experience suggests that the optimum way to run a research think tank would be to take people’s nice offices away from them and to make them live in garrets, and even to insist that they do non-researchy things. That’s a strange way to run a research center, but it might well be true that the imposition of such constraints would bring out maximum creativity.” — after mentioning that he was able to come up with several relatively important ideas (attribute grammars, Knuth-Bendix completion, LL(k) parsing) during the “most hectic year of his life”.

· On aesthetics according to C. S. Peirce: “Aesthetics deals with things that are admirable; ethics deals with things that are right or wrong; logic deals with things that are true or false.

· “Somehow the whole idea of art and aesthetics and beauty underlies all the scientific work I do. Whatever I do, I try to do it in a way that has some elegance; I try to create something that I think is beautiful. Instead of just getting a job done, I prefer to do my work in a way that pleases me in as many senses as possible…. I like especially to be associated with art, in the sense of making things of beauty.

· Planet Without Laughter: “.. It’s a marvelous parable on many levels, about the limits of rationality. You can read it to get insight about all religions, and about the question of form over substance in religion.

· Eugene Wigner, a Princeton physicist: “It is good that the completion of our scientific work is an unattainable ideal. Striving toward it is attracting many of us, and gives much pleasure and satisfaction… If science were completed, the satisfaction which research, the furthering of human knowledge, had provided, would disappear. Also, even more men would strive for power and domination…. We know that there are facts and insights which we cannot communicate to animals — no animal is familiar, for instance, with the associative law of multiplication… Is it not possible that our understanding of nature also has limitations?… I hope that, even if this should be true, we will be able to continue the extension of our knowledge indefinitely, … even if the limit thereof will always remain widely separated from the complete knowledge and understanding of nature.

· On artificial life: “… the Game of Life illustrates the power of evolutionary mechanisms. Stable configurations arise out of random soup, usually very quickly; and many of those configurations have properties analogous to biological organisms.

· Stuart Sutherland, in the 1996 edition of the International Dictionary of Psychology: “Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenom: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has ever been written on it.

.NET HttpRequest.ValidateInput()

I mentioned that v1.1 of ASP.NET by default validates input received from QueryString, Form and Cookie scope. You can turn off this validation site wide by tweaking the web.config:

<configuration>
  <system.web>
    <pages validateRequest=”false” />
  </system.web>
</configuration>

But then you’re left with no validation right? Wrong. You can use the ValidateInput() method of the HttpRequest object programmatically in any code that has access to the HttpRequest instance. Very useful stuff.

One question though: What is potentially dangerous data according to Microsoft? And can you modify that definition? I’m guessing the answers are: a) we’ll never know and b) no. Given their track record, does it make sense to trust Microsoft to validate the input you receive from client browsers when the browser they created can’t be trusted?

More on the out method parameter

I’m sure this is boring for about 99% of you, but I’m writing for my own benefit anyway. I mentioned the ‘out method parameter’ yesterday because I saw it used in a custom library I’m using and then today I found out that the Double class uses it as well. I think it’s a great example of how it should be used. It’s used in the TryParse method:

public static bool TryParse(
   string s,
   NumberStyles style,
   IFormatProvider provider,
   out double result
);

The TryParse method is like the Parse method, except this method does not throw an exception if the conversion fails. If the conversion succeeds, the return value is true and the result parameter is set to the outcome of the conversion. If the conversion fails, the return value is false and the result parameter is set to zero.

I like it because throwing an exception (ie: what the Parse() method does) violates rule #39 of Effective Java Programming which says to “… Use exceptions only for exceptional conditions.” Using an out parameter feels cleaner and simpler. Anyone else think so?

out method parameter in C#

Just discovered this C# tidbit called the out method parameter. Let’s say you have a method:

public String ReplaceAll(String toReplace, String replaceWith)

and you want to know how many replacements were actually made. With a regular method you can only return the modified string. The out method parameter gives you the ability to return another variable. The modified method would look like this:

public String ReplaceAll(String toReplace, String replaceWith, out int numReplaced)

and then concretely:

String myString = “aaron”;
int replaced;
myString.ReplaceAll(“a”, “k”, out replaced);
Console.WriteLine(“The method ReplaceAll() replaced ” + replaced + ” characters.”);

Similar idea in the ref method parameter, but you have to initialize the variable before sending it to the method.

The Philosophy of Ruby: An interview with Yukihiro Matsumoto

Bill Venners just posted the first of an installment of articles with Yukihiro Matsumoto, the creator of the programming language Ruby. Specifically, they talk about the how Ruby wasn’t designed to the the ‘perfect’ language (but rather a language that feels good when used), and “… the danger of orthogonality, granting freedom with guidance, the principle of least surprise and the importance of the human in computer endeavors.

I thought the quote “Language designers want to design the perfect language.” could also be re-phrased as “Programmers want to feel like their language is the perfect lanaguage.” I know this blog is being syndicated through fullasagoog.com (as a ColdFusion blog) and also through markme.com (as a Java blog) and I read alot of the blogs on both sites, as well as some of the blogs on weblogs.asp.net and javablogs.com. It’s interesting that all of the above mentioned sites (not to mention slashdot) are generally short sighted when it comes to the subject of what language is better (reference discussions re: Java as the SUV of programming languages, PHP vs. ASP.NET, MX vs. .NET) and hammer away at how x is better than y. I think Yukihiro is right, there isn’t a ‘perfect programming’ language and there never will be. Macromedia employees probably aren’t encouraged to say this, but I’d encourage anyone writing a ColdFusion application to try and write a similar application in ASP.NET or in Java using Struts or in ASP.. or even Ruby. You’ll be amazed at how things you’ll learn.

Ericsson Mobile Positioning SDK

Ericsson released beta 2 of their MPS SDK, which is a software development kit for developing location based services on wireless phones. According to the site:

“It supports both the Ericsson proprietary Mobile Positioning Protocol (MPP) and the Mobile Location Protocol (MLP). MLP is the standardized interface between a Location Based Service application and the Mobile Positioning System.”

You can download the SDK here (requires login).

Fall weekend in New England

It’s fall in New England (in contrast to somewhere like California, where it’s fallsummerspringwinter all year ’round), so yesterday we went apple picking up in York County, Maine at McDougal Orchards with Kristen (who I didn’t get a picture of! doh!), Molly and Jack. You can see our pictures here. Afterwards, Karen and Kristen made the World’s Best Apple Pie and this morning Karen made Apple Nut Coffee Cake.

re: Features Talk, but Behaviors Close

From the cooper.com newsletter, an article that was able to clearly and poignantly articulate a discussion I’ve struggled with many times at work. As part of our proposal process we’re constantly putting together “feature lists” (which admittedly we do combine with more in-depth lists and descriptions) that describes each and every entity included in the project.

Discussions of a software product in terms of its features were intended to serve as a bridge between constituents who otherwise had few terms in common: users and software developers. Users want a product to satisfy their goals (why else use a productivity application?), while software developers need to know what to build (otherwise they will just make it up themselves). Meanwhile, marketers and sales folks want to discuss the characteristics of a forthcoming product. So everybody has been instructed to talk in terms of “features.” Customer needs are translated into a marketing requirements document, which serves as a vague template for software construction. But what started out as a bridge—features—has broken apart. Users stand at one anchorage and product developers stand at the other, both scratching their heads at the expanse of shark-infested waters still separating them.

In short, the solution:

While part of the discussion can take place using the language of features (for instance, the IT guy is going to want to know whether the product has “128-bit encryption”), the best opportunities and longest-lasting relationships are going to come when the language of goals and behaviors is introduced, because then you’re in the business of solving personal goals and organizational objectives, rather than feature checklists.

Please send this to every software sales, marketing and project manager that you know. No more “features”!

Now with 50% less caffeine!