On the basis of an IFIP WG 2.3 meeting in Han-sur-Lesse (Belgium), Dijkstra expressed his misgivings about the overhead projector. He preferred the blackboard much more and the interaction it required between him and the audience. That is, he preferred to give "lectures", not "presentations". Instead of preparing everything in advance, he wanted room to improvise during his lectures.

Here is what a reviewer had to say about the research paper `Dijkstra’s Rallying Cry ...':

The paper is, in essence, about an argument of generality versus computer efficiency. The argument was eventually settled in favour of the former due to the enormous advances in electronic technology. Today, computer efficiency is not an issue any more.

Is this correct? The last sentence seems to contradict Martin Reiser’s “law” which states that

Looking back at the late 1960s, Dijkstra mentioned that progress had been made in processor allocation, mainly due to the work of his students Bomhoff and Feijen. With respect to virtual storage implementations, however, Dijkstra humbly admitted that much had still to be done on this subject. Even though he had spent months trying to do so, he was stil not able to find the right abstractions. [EWD300]