🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <170500013@uiucdcsb> robison@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
     In a related article, I (pcm) wrote:

>> It would be nice if a physicist (for example) could stick primarily to 
>> physics and not have to learn a second discipline (computer science). 

>This is becoming increasing unlikely for physicists.  The problem
>is not user interfaces or computer grammar, but good algorithms.

   I obviously didn't make my point clear enough.  I think that computer
   science will reach such an advanced state (at some point in the future)
   that applications programmers and users will have no need for such 
   knowledge.  

   At that point, architectural and algorithmic details will hopefully
   become background details which are handled transparently.  An example
   of where this has already occurred is in the use of overlays: virtual 
   memory has made one troublesome programming detail an obsolete 
   consideration on most scientific computers.

   I am hopeful that the work on sophisticated user interfaces (like the
   Mac) will continue to (r)evolutionize computer science.  Maybe someday
   physicists will be able to specify things at a more abstract level.

Phil Miller