🚀 go-pugleaf

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2018 22:02:39 GMT, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 2018-02-15, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> As computers have become more powerful, we have lost certain positive
>>> things we had when they were much weaker.
>> 
>> Like knowing how not to create bloated, incomprehensible systems.
>> Nowadays, good design has been replaced by brute force.
>> "Who cares if it's a bubble sort?  I have a fast processor."
>> The worst part is that there's now enough power to make
>> payroll sytems even more convoluted than ever; it's a
>> bureaucrat's wet dream but everyone else's nightmare.
>> 
>> There are so many horror stories about hundreds of millions of dollars
>> spent on computer systems that don't work.  I dream about a day when
>> people get so fed up about things like not getting paid (e.g. the
>> Canadian government's Phoenix payroll system, which only fulfils
>> the first half of the legend by going down in flames) that the
>> KISS principle will one day re-emerge.
>> 
>>> Having those things while retaining the much greater power and economy
>>> of today's computers, though, isn't an easy puzzle to solve.
>> 
>> The worst part is that some people don't want it solved.
>> See Lynn's posts about the success of failure.
> 
> Today they do ridiculous things like have a "robot" read and OCR the
> entire display to figure out where a Telnet session is so that it can
> then read the data off the green screen and type commands into it,
> where identifying the underlying database and writing a few lines of
> COBOL would likely product the same result at thousands of times the
> speed.
> 

Sure, now. A lot of robotics is still in the experimental "playing" 
stages. Just wait.

-- 
Pete