Our intellectual powers are rather geared to master static relations and that our powers to visualize processes evolving in time are relatively poorly developed. For that reason we should do (as wise programmers aware of our limitations) our utmost to shorten the conceptual gap between the static program and the dynamic process, to make the correspondence between the program (spread out in text space) and the process (spread out in time) as trivial as possible.

If in physics there's something you don't understand, you can always hide behind the uncharted depths of nature. You can always blame God. You didn't make it so complex yourself. But if your program doesn't work, there is no one to hide behind. You cannot hide behind an obstinate nature. If it doesn't work, you've messed up.

Are you quite sure that all those bells and whistles, all those wonderful facilities of your so called powerful programming languages, belong to the solution set rather than the problem set?

If there is one 'scientific' discovery I am proud of, it is the discovery of the habit of writing without publication in mind.

If you want more effective programmers, you will discover that they should not waste their time debugging, they should not introduce the bugs to start with.

The art of programming is the art of organizing complexity.

Mentally mutilated potential programmers beyond hope of regeneration.