By the way, I *do* object to the implicit idea that technical (and possibly
"scientific" or "math" too?) discussions are likely to lack substance,

I had a lovely discussion with a bright engineer recently about a very
explicit code project, Angular.  Certainly a detailed discussion of its
"code" and "architecture" would be boring to all but those interested in
Angular.

But then a lovely distinction was made: that Angular was different from
other code bases by being a framework for building "Domain Specific
Languages".

Again, I don't expect folks to grasp the down and dirty here, but suffice
it to say the DSL comment raised the tech talk to a much more subtle level,
pulled me out of the bits, and we did have a conversation about it later.

So lets try to not have too many assumptions here about content.  I can
delete conversations easily if I find them annoying.

   -- Owen


On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an 
> occasional
>> theme that also occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about
>> philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.
>
>
> As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I
> don't hold it.
>
> What I do object to are the traps of:
> - Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll
> agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type
> of thread, I think they are divergent.
> - Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and
> goal of the conversation.
> - Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the
> ill defined discussions and correct.  But it is annoying.  As I am :)
> - TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard
> on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion,
> followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail,
> especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>
> There, that's not so bad is it?
>
>    -- Owen
>
>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Reply via email to