技术控

    今日:89| 主题:49113
收藏本版 (1)
最新软件应用技术尽在掌握

[其他] Vigorous Public Debates in Academic Computer Science

[复制链接]
人艰不拆 发表于 2016-10-2 22:13:53
96 3

立即注册CoLaBug.com会员,免费获得投稿人的专业资料,享用更多功能,玩转个人品牌!

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
The other day a non-CS friend remarked to me that since computer science is a quantitative, technical discipline, most issues probably have an obvious objective truth. Of course this is not at all the case, and it is not uncommon to find major disagreements even when all parties are apparently reasonable and acting in good faith. Sometimes these disagreements spill over into the public space.
  The purpose of this post is to list a collection of public debates in academic computer science where there is genuine and heartfelt disagreement among intelligent and accomplished researchers. I sometimes assign these as reading in class: they are a valuable resource for a couple of reasons. First, they show an important part of science that often gets swept under the rug. Second, they put discussions out into the open where they are widely accessible. In contrast, I’ve heard of papers that are known to be worthless by all of the experts in the area, but only privately — and this private knowledge is of no help to outsiders who might be led astray by the bad research. For whatever reasons (see    this tweetby Brendan Dolan-Gavitt) the culture in CS does not seem to encourage retracting papers.  
  
       
  • N-version programming is a software development method where several implementations of a specification are run in parallel and voting is used to determine the correct result.      Knight and Leveson wrote a papershowing that the assumption of independent faults in independent implementations may not be a good one. This finding did not sit well with the proponents of n-version programming and while I cannot find online copies of their rebuttals, Knight and Leveson’s      reply to the criticismsincludes plenty of quotes. This is great reading, a classic of the genre.   
  • Starting in the late 1980s, Ken Birman’s group was advocating      causal and totally ordered multicast. Cheriton and Skeen were less than impressed and      wrote 15 pages to that effect. Then we have      Birman’s 32-page response to the criticisms. Also see      Neha Narula’s take on the debate.   
  •       This 1991 paperintroduced log-based filesystems. In 1993      Seltzer et al. published this paperdescribing and evaluating an implementation of a log-based filesystem, and      this followup in 1995. John Ousterhout, one of the authors of the original paper,      disagreed with the evaluation. Seltzer and her coauthors      rebutted his critique, and Ousterhout had, as far as I know,      the last word.   
  •       Linus v Tanenbaumon the merits of microkernels is another classic. Also see some (one-sided)      comments on a reincarnation of the debate here. Related, Hand et al. published a paper      Are Virtual Machine Monitors Microkernels Done Right?; in response, Heiser et al. wrote a paper      with the same titlebut coming to the other conclusion.   
  •       Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programsis a provocative opinion piece about the role of formal methods in software development. Dijkstra called it “a very obnoxious paper” (      see page 14 of this transcript) and wrote a response called “      On a Political Pamphlet from the Middle Ages.”      DeMillo et al. replied: “We must begin by refusing to concede that our confidence in a piece of real software has ever been increased by a proof of its correctness…” See      Victor Yodaiken’s take on this debate.   
  • Sticking with Dijkstra, he and John Backus had a (only partially public) spat,      nicely written up here.  
  I’d like to fill any holes in this list, please leave a comment if you know of a debate that I’ve left out!
  Here are some more debates:
  
       
  •       Software-based attestationoffers a protocol for checking that a remote system contains the memory image that we expect it to have.      On the Difficulty of Software-Based Attestation of Embedded Devicespresents concrete attacks on SWATT. Perrig and van Doorn      did not agree that the attacks were validand, finally,      Francillon et al. responded to the refutation.   
  • Seecomment #1   
  • Seecomment #2  
友荐云推荐




上一篇:DDDBelfast Retrospective
下一篇:12 Visual Studio 2015 Extensions You Might Find Useful
酷辣虫提示酷辣虫禁止发表任何与中华人民共和国法律有抵触的内容!所有内容由用户发布,并不代表酷辣虫的观点,酷辣虫无法对用户发布内容真实性提供任何的保证,请自行验证并承担风险与后果。如您有版权、违规等问题,请通过"联系我们"或"违规举报"告知我们处理。

enypwfol 发表于 2016-10-3 00:10:45
哥不说话,笑着路过!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

景艳 发表于 2016-10-6 02:46:34
和你擦肩而过你却不知道是我,因为我把头扭过去了。 
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

忆寒 发表于 2016-10-12 20:11:02
过去的事情可以不忘记,但一定要放下。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

*滑动验证:
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

我要投稿

推荐阅读

扫码访问 @iTTTTT瑞翔 的微博
回页顶回复上一篇下一篇回列表手机版
手机版/CoLaBug.com ( 粤ICP备05003221号 | 文网文[2010]257号 )|网站地图 酷辣虫

© 2001-2016 Comsenz Inc. Design: Dean. DiscuzFans.

返回顶部 返回列表