Progress is possible only if we train ourselves to think about programs without thinking of them as pieces of executable code.
In the good old days physicists repeated each other's experiments, just to be sure. Today they stick to FORTRAN, so that they can share each other's programs, bugs included.
Interpretation
What this quote means
Dijkstra critiques the modern reliance on programming over peer verification in physics.
In this quote, Edsger Dijkstra contrasts the collaborative nature of past physics experiments, where physicists would reproduce each other's experiments to validate results, with the current trend of relying solely on programming languages like FORTRAN. He suggests that while modern methods allow for sharing of code, they also carry the risk of sharing existing errors, which may detract from the rigor and trustworthiness that repeated experimental verification once provided.
Themes
In practice
Example use cases
In a discussion about the importance of reproducibility in scientific research, this quote serves as a reminder of the value of traditional experimental methods.
More from Edsger Dijkstra
All quotes βSimplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
The purpose of abstraction is not to be vague, but to create a new semantic level in which one can be absolutely precise.
We shall do a much better programming job, provided that we approach the task with a full appreciation of its tremendous difficulty, provided that we stick to modest and elegant programming languages, provided that we respect the intrinsic limitations of the human mind and approach the task as Very Humble Programmers.
The tools we use have a profound and devious influence on our thinking habits, and therefore on our thinking abilities.
LISP has jokingly been described as "the most intelligent way to misuse a computer." I think that description is a great compliment because it transmits the full flavour of liberation: it has assisted a number of our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible thoughts.
Similar quotes
The main difficulty is finding an idea that really excites me. We live in an age when miracles are no longer miracles, and science and the future are losing their sense of mystery. For science fiction, or at least the type of science fiction I write, this development is almost fatal, but I'm still giving it all I've got.
If your child gets asthma, the fossil fuel industry doesn't pay. Or if there's a natural disaster, the bill is paid by the taxpayer, not the fossil fuel company.
And what I wanted to do was, I wanted to explore problems and areas where we didn't have answers. In fact, where we didn't even know the right questions to ask.
Countless women are alive today because of ideas stimulated by a design flaw in the Hubble Space Telescope.
You'll often hear the phrase "science doesn't know everything." Well, of course it doesn't know everything. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that it knows nothing.
Our role is to develop techniques that allow us to provide emergency life-saving procedures to injured patients in an extreme, remote environment without the presence of a physician.