[ogogmad]

If read in its proper context, instead of misinterpreting it by thinking it's talking about concerns people have today, wasn't Dijkstra in favour of a very aggressive use of formal methods in programming? This is something quite different to what modern programmers or "computer scientists" are used to. I have a feeling that people don't really understand what Dijkstra was advocating.

His advocacy could be considered quite extreme. He apparently suggested (I don't know whether jokingly or not) that programmers not test their code, and instead write it on paper with various kinds of mathematical correctness proofs, and only then type it on a computer. It's admittedly thought provoking but I have an uncomfortable feeling that some naive people might have followed his advice very literally, and off a cliff.

Generally, I think people should read writing from decades ago in its proper context.

[retrac]

> It's admittedly thought provoking but I have an uncomfortable feeling that some naive people might have followed his advice very literally, and off a cliff.

I am reminded of his GOTO Considered Harmful. It was radical advice in its day. Not too many languages immediately after actually tossed it. It wasn't always obvious at the time how to transform some structures efficiently. E.g. the designers of UNIX were fully convinced by structured programming but C still had GOTO. Even now there's GOTO in drivers etc. in the Linux kernel. People debate whether Rust should have it. Etc. Despite this everyone accepts the basic idea these days.

[AlexanderDhoore]

Yes, Dijkstra was an idealist. But sometimes that's exactly what the world needs. We are drowning in complexity.

[Zuider]

Dijkstra took a top down 'God's eye' perspective which could seem impractical and even perverse to those people just trying to make things work by tinkering, and easily distracted into chasing after the latest poorly understood magic bullet. There doesn't seem to be an easy bridge between Dijkstra's vantage point and the complexity of actual practice, but That does not make his philosophy any less valuable.