On 10 August 2017 at 13:39, David Collier-Brown <davecb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/17 02:47 AM, Henrik Johansson wrote:
>> I beg to differ. Most Java apps I have seen over many years almost
>> unanimously suffer from over-modeling.
> A former customer did a deep, thoughtful, *thorough* model of bracket
> tournaments, without any attempt to abstract the salient features. Java
> represented it beautifully, in complete detail...
> So it's now impossible for a single person to keep it in their brain, and
> every attempt to change it introduces new, surprising "features".
> In effect, the ability to represent anything easily led to our error: we
> represented _everything_.

I remember something similar happening with some Haskell I wrote.
Because the type system was so powerful, it felt wrong not use it to
represent everything, which ended up problematic. Frivolous thought:
I wonder if there's an (far-fetched) analogy to be made between this
and dropout techniques in neural networks - if our type system is really
powerful, it's easy for our type structures to "overfit" to the current
problem being solved, making it less adaptable and maintainable when
the problem changes.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to