I guess we could say
bike = machine code
car = imperative/procedural/oo
rocket/jet = functional
scala = batmobile :)
and draw some comparisons:
- riding a bike actually takes a lot of clever muscle co-ordination
- cyclists often know all the internal construction details of their
vehicle
- modern cars are build from easily-replaced modules with fewer
user-servicable parts, much like OO
- fuel efficiency is like memory efficiency
- the machining behind a turbine needs to be more precise than a
combustion engine's
- it's easier to go parallel with planes, they don't have to coordinate
overtaking on motorways, but I/O (airports) still force you to serialise.
It helps if you can scale up to multiple airports.
- a good type system is like armour-plating, it protects you from nasty
things
and some places where it breaks down:
- What of electric cars and hybrids?
- I also still cant figure the hovercraft and helicopters fit in
- Is SAP ABAP an oil tanker?
On 6 August 2010 10:47, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/6/10 11:32 , Kevin Wright wrote:
> > First came bikes, they had very few moving parts, and so were easy
> > to understand Then came the infernal combustion engine, with more
> > moving parts and harder to understand, but definitely faster Then
> > came the jet turbine, with just a single moving part, and rockets
> > with none
> >
> > A car is more effective than a bike, but also more complex A plane
> > is more effective than a car, but also less complex So simplicity
> > and effectiveness are not correlated here.
> >
> > Why is it, then, that cars seen as normal and simple; while jets
> > and rockets are perceived as modern and advanced? As many will
> > point out, rockets pre-date cars by a long way, the Chinese have
> > used them in fireworks for a *long* time. And the concepts
> > underlying a turbine are far simpler than those behind a
> > four-stroke engine.
> >
> > It's a good metaphor, with plenty of scope for extending.
> > Consider that modern petrol engines use "injection"...
> >
> >
> Right. In fact I question that a car is more effective than a bicycle,
> or a plane more than a car. It depends on the use. But there's another
> thing to add: one thing is the implementation complexity (needed for
> people that make bikes/cars/languages) and the interface complexity
> (needed or people that use bike/cars/languages). I find quite obvious
> that driving a car is more complex than riding a bicycle (*). So, we
> should also put the specs size in this perspective (in other words: I
> suspect that 99% of the people who program in Java never read the
> specs, but a much simpler tutorial).
>
> (*) In general. I drive cars, but I'm not able to ride a bicycle :-(((
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
> [email protected]
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEUEARECAAYFAkxb2hgACgkQeDweFqgUGxccfQCaA8FnQlvuVj5LIosLHmbZAUzM
> O34Al0605IAMxeyXHEJ2X3VcT1ZfIdg=
> =3DuM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
--
Kevin Wright
mail/google talk: [email protected]
wave: [email protected]
skype: kev.lee.wright
twitter: @thecoda
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
