[lit-ideas] Re: Is a computer program a performative?
- From: Teemu Pyyluoma <teme17@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
> I fear that most lawyers, even---or perhaps
especially---those who deal with the law relating to
computers are remarkably ignorant of the ``dual
nature'' of computers and computer programs. I am,
therefore, delighted to have the citation to "The Dual
Nature of Technical Artifacts." <
Peter, you might want to check out Winter 2002 number
of journal Techné
(http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v6n2/)
devoted to the Dual Nature dilemma at which Peter
Kroes and Anthonie Meijers who coined the term
converse with critics. My interpretation of what they
are trying to do is to build a bridge concept between
design and end use, something I think can not be done
but they do highlight an important issue. From an end
use perspective "it is what it does", from a designer
perspective something with a history, an expression of
human will. That your lawyer aquintances think that
programs are just machines, is because they ignore the
process behind it. From that kind of perspective
Arthur C. Clarke is right, technology is indeed
indistinguishable from magic.
However for anyone with even superficial familarility
with programming, it's plain obvious that code is
communication. Lot of people collaborate on programs,
code that only it's writer understand is useless.
Programming in a clear understandable way and
documenting it is a virtue much appreciated by
colleagues and employers.
ALso, this relates to one major problem relating to IT
decision making, visualization. A recent report on why
IT projects fail by Royal Academy Engineering sums it
well:
> "If I was a managing director trained in law or
accountancy I wouldn?t ask an engineer to build a 1000
metre long concrete beam suspended at one end because
I know it can?t be done, I have a physical perspective
about it. With software, it?s never like that. We
don?t have any underlying feel for whether something
is even feasible" (L. Hatton)
> Software is effectively invisible. This
visualisation problem is a source of many potential
IT project failures. Senior managers commissioning IT
systems may ask for functions that are over-ambitious,
or even impossible to deliver, without having any
sense of the level of complexity entailed in meeting
their request. Moreover, unlike other branches of
engineering, it is quite unusual for senior management
to have significant first-hand experience of software
engineering or IT project management.
(http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/attach/215.pdf)<
This is the problem I struggle with daily. Replace IT
project by legistalation and managers by
legistalators, law scholars, etc. and I think that
this is pretty much your problem.
I am interested in these issues, what you wrote about
not finding anything useful on legal literature is
typical. I do believe that lot of people are wrestling
with understanding technology in general and computers
in particular, but there is no common terminology.
There is related discussion in social sciences
(technological determinism, etc.), some of the issues
are the same as in aesthetics (artefacts vs. natural
objects, role of artist contra spectator and so on)...
But that will have to wait for another day.
Cheers,
Teemu
Helsinki, Finland
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
