Probably I Am Very Naive,

The Use Of Anthropomorphic Terminology Forces You Linguistically To Adopt An Operational View. And It Makes It Practically Impossible To Argue About Programs Independently Of Their Being Executed.

Some Consider The Puzzles That Are Created By Their Omissions As Spicy Challenges, Without Which Their Texts Would Be Boring; Others Shun Clarity Lest Their Work Is Considered Trivial.

The Traditional Mathematician Recognizes And Appreciates Mathematical Elegance When He Sees It. I Propose To Go One Step Further, And To Consider Elegance An Essential Ingredient Of Mathematics: If It Is Clumsy, It Is Not Mathematics.

Write A Paper Promising Salvation, Make It A "structured" Something Or A "virtual" Something, Or "abstract," "distributed" Or "higher-order" Or "applicative" And You Can Almost Be Certain Of Having Started A New Cult.

Progress Is Possible Only If We Train Ourselves To Think About Programs Without Thinking Of Them As Pieces Of Executable Code.