.
From: Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
To: Fundamentals of New Computing fonc@vpri.org
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:20:22 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] The Web Will Die When OOP Dies
BGB wrote:
a problem is partly how exactly one defines complex:
one definition is in terms of visible
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Wesley Smith wrote:
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement so far.
As I
I really like you observation about debugging. The error you see was bad
copying from another workspace. Totally botched. My email proof reading skill
are totally lacking as well. In general I will get everything I try to do
initially wrong and if I don't get something very wrong every 30
Thanks for the link. This thread has had me thinking quite a bit about the
Central Limit Theorem from probability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
It explains why so many of our measurements result in normal distributions.
-David Leibs
On Jun 17, 2012, at 9:36 AM, GrrrWaaa
GrrrWaaa wrote:
On Jun 16, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Wesley Smith wrote:
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
A valid question might be: how much of this information should be
represented in code? How much should instead be heuristically captured by
generic machine learning techniques, indeterminate STM solvers, or stability
On Jun 15, 2012 2:39 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com
wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses
for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I paraphrase your
thoughts as, Because people are
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses
for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I paraphrase
On 6/16/2012 9:19 AM, Randy MacDonald wrote:
On 6/10/2012 1:15 AM, BGB wrote:
meanwhile, I have spent several days on-off pondering the mystery of
if there is any good syntax (for a language with a vaguely C-like
syntax), to express the concept of execute these statements in
parallel and
@BGB, if the braces around the letters defers execution, as my memories
of Perl confirm, this is perfect. With APL, quoting an expression
accomplishes the same end: '1+1'
On another note, I agree with the thesis that OO is just message passing:
aResult ← someParameters 'messageName'
On 6/16/2012 10:05 AM, Randy MacDonald wrote:
@BGB, if the braces around the letters defers execution, as my
memories of Perl confirm, this is perfect. With APL, quoting an
expression accomplishes the same end: '1+1'
no, the braces indicate a code block (in statement context), and it is
On 6/16/2012 11:36 AM, Randy MacDonald wrote:
@BGB, by the 'same end' i meant tranforming a statement into something
that a flow control operator can act on, like if () {...} else {} The
domain of the execute operator in APL is quoted strings. I did not
mean that the same end was allowing
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement so far. Biological
systems naturally make use of objects across vastly different scales
to
Wesley Smith wrote:
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement so far.
As I recall, there was a recent Nobel prize that boiled down
On 6/16/2012 1:39 PM, Wesley Smith wrote:
If things are expanding then they have to get more complex, they encompass
more.
Aside from intuition, what evidence do you have to back this statement
up? I've seen no justification for this statement so far. Biological
systems naturally make use of
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Paul Homer paul_ho...@yahoo.ca wrote:
there is some underlying complexity tied to the functionality that
dictates that it could never be any less the X lines of code. The system
encapsulates a significant amount of information, and stealing from Shannon
BGB wrote:
a problem is partly how exactly one defines complex:
one definition is in terms of visible complexity, where basically
adding a feature causes code to become harder to understand, more
tangled, ...
another definition, apparently more popular among programmers, is to
simply
On 6/16/2012 2:20 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
BGB wrote:
a problem is partly how exactly one defines complex:
one definition is in terms of visible complexity, where basically
adding a feature causes code to become harder to understand, more
tangled, ...
another definition, apparently more
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
On Jun 15, 2012 2:39 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon p...@informatimago.com
wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses
for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I
On 6/14/2012 10:19 PM, John Zabroski wrote:
Folks,
Arguing technical details here misses the point. For example, a
different conversation can be started by asking Why does my web
hosting provider say I need an FTP client? Already technology is way
too much in my face and I hate seeing
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Folks,
Arguing technical details here misses the point. For example, a
different conversation can be started by asking Why does my web
hosting provider say I need an FTP client? Already technology is way
too much in my face and I hate seeing
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
p...@informatimago.com wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Folks,
Arguing technical details here misses the point. For example, a
different conversation can be started by asking Why does my web
hosting provider
John Zabroski wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
p...@informatimago.com mailto:p...@informatimago.com wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com
mailto:johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
All I want to do is upload a file
and yet I have all these
I see something deeper in what Zed is saying.
My first really strong experiences with programming came from the
data-structures world in the late 80s at the University of Waterloo. There was
an implicit view that one could decompose all problems into data-structures
(and a few algorithms and
] The Web Will Die When OOP Dies
Paul Homer wrote:
It is far more than obvious that OO opened the door to allow massive
systems. Theoretically they were possible before, but it gave us a way
to manage the complexity of these beasts. Still, like all technologies,
it comes with a built
David Leibs david.le...@oracle.com writes:
I have kinda lost track of this thread so forgive me if I wander off
in a perpendicular direction.
I believe that things do not have to continually get more and more
complex. The way out for me is to go back to the beginning and start
over (which
@vpri.org
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:17:19 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] The Web Will Die When OOP Dies
I have kinda lost track of this thread so forgive me if I wander off in a
perpendicular direction.
I believe that things do not have to continually get more and more complex.
The way out for me
Speaking of multiplication. Ken Iverson teaches us to do multiplication by
using a * outer product to build a times table for the digits involved.
+-++
| | 3 6 6|
+-++
|3| 9 18 18|
|6|18 36 36|
|5|15 30 30|
+-++
Now you sum each diagonal:
(9) (18+18) (18+36+15)
Fascinating.
How did Iverson do division?
Op 15 jun. 2012, om 23:08 heeft David Leibs het volgende geschreven:
Speaking of multiplication. Ken Iverson teaches us to do multiplication by
using a * outer product to build a times table for the digits involved.
+-++
| | 3 6 6|
Paul,
I found your post interesting in that it might reflect a fundamental
problem that I have with normal, average OO, and that is that
methods belong with data. I have never bought that ideaever. I
remember feeling stupid because I could never grok that idea and then
felt better when the
Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com writes:
Sorry, you did not answer my question, but instead presented excuses
for why programmers misunderstand people. (Can I paraphrase your
thoughts as, Because people are not programmers!)
No, you misunderstood my answer:
Paul Homer wrote:
In software, you might build a system with 100,000 lines of code.
Someone else might come along and build it with 20,000 lines of code,
but there is some underlying complexity tied to the functionality that
dictates that it could never be any less the X lines of code. The
On 16 June 2012 02:23, Mark Haniford markhanif...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul,
I found your post interesting in that it might reflect a fundamental
problem that I have with normal, average OO, and that is that
methods belong with data. I have never bought that ideaever. I
remember feeling
On 9 June 2012 22:06, Toby Schachman t...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Message passing does not necessitate a conceptual dependence on
request-response communication. Yet most code I see in the wild uses
this pattern.
Sapir-Whorf strikes again? ;-)
I rarely
see an OO program where there is a
This half hour talk from Zed Shaw is making rounds,
https://vimeo.com/43380467
The first half is typical complaints about broken w3 standards and
processes. The second half is his own observations on the difficulties
of teaching OOP. He then suggests that OOP is an unnatural programming
paradigm
Toby Schachman t...@alum.mit.edu writes:
This half hour talk from Zed Shaw is making rounds,
https://vimeo.com/43380467
The first half is typical complaints about broken w3 standards and
processes. The second half is his own observations on the difficulties
of teaching OOP. He then suggests
Toby Schachman wrote:
This half hour talk from Zed Shaw is making rounds,
https://vimeo.com/43380467
The first half is typical complaints about broken w3 standards and
processes. The second half is his own observations on the difficulties
of teaching OOP. He then suggests that OOP is an
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Pascal J. Bourguignon
p...@informatimago.com wrote:
Request-responses mode comes from the mapping of the notion of message
sending to the low-level notion of calling a subroutine. Unidirectional
references comes from the mapping of the notion of association to
While i agree with guy's bashing on HTTP,
the second part of his talk is complete bullshit.
He mentions a kind of 'signal processing' paradigm,
but we already have it: message passing.
Before i learned smalltalk, i was also thinking that OOP is about
structures and hierarchies, inheritance.. and
On 6/9/2012 9:28 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
While i agree with guy's bashing on HTTP,
the second part of his talk is complete bullshit.
IMO, he did raise some valid objections regarding JS and similar though
as well.
these are also yet more areas though where BS differs from JS: it uses
40 matches
Mail list logo
