No one need fear. Greg is a benevolent evil genius ;) Seriously, it's threads like this that make me realize just how many freakin' brilliant people are on list.
Derek 2009/6/18 Oliver Lambert <olambo...@gmail.com> > Hi Greg, > Thank you, I enjoyed reading that. Perhaps the Greedy Empire, should > indeed, be worried. > > cheers > Oliver > > > 2009/6/18 Meredith Gregory <lgreg.mered...@gmail.com> > >> Oliver, >> >> You wrote: >> >> we would have taken over Google by now. >>> >> >> My not-so-secret plan for taking over Google is contained in the deck i >> posted in response to >> Viktor<http://svn.biosimilarity.com/src/open/talks/MonadicDesignPatternsForTheWeb.pdf>. >> Part of the reason i was excited that Jonas took on to make the JTA wrapper >> monadic is that it composes perfectly with the ideas explained in the deck. >> These ideas dovetail perfectly with the DSL stuff i've been working on. >> >> My feeling is that we are at a point where things could really start to >> happen. The ideas are 'in the air' so to speak. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> --greg >> >> 2009/6/17 Oliver Lambert <olambo...@gmail.com> >> >> >>> >>> 2009/6/18 Meredith Gregory <lgreg.mered...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> Oliver, >>>> >>>> The short answer is no. The longer answer is >>>> >>>> - i worked this all out on my own; so, you guys -- who can program >>>> lift on top of scala on top of JVM and are therefore about 20X smarter >>>> than >>>> i am -- can too. >>>> >>>> I think if we were all 20X (or 2X) smarter than you, we would have taken >>> over Google by now. >>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> - And also, help is always available, if there is something specific >>>> you don't understand, let me know and i will do my best to convey it to >>>> you. >>>> >>>> As suggested by another kind person, I may have to start by going back >>> to (an American?) school. >>> >>> Heres a question, why should I care about Monad's when they are already >>> in OO, just not called Monads? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> --greg >>>> >>>> P.S. Here is a version of the paragraph with links to useful bits of >>>> lore from the literature. >>>> >>>> For myself, i was unhappy with the notion of name. The >>>> π-calculi<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-calculus>and lambda >>>> calculi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus> suffer a >>>> dependence on a notion of name. Both families of calculi require at least >>>> countably >>>> infinitely <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countable> many >>>> names<http://www.cs.nps.navy.mil/research/languages/statements/gordon.html>, >>>> and a notion of equality on names. If names have no internal structure then >>>> these theories *cannot be >>>> effective<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function> >>>> *. The reasons is that the notion of equality must then be realized as >>>> an infinitary table which cannot fit in any computer we have access to. >>>> Therefore, in effective theories, names must have internal structure. Since >>>> they have internal structure and are at least countably infinite, one is in >>>> danger of undermining the foundational character of these proposals for >>>> computing. Therefore, the only possible solution is that the notion of >>>> structured name must come from the notion of program proposed by the model. >>>> This argument is airtight. If you want a foundational model of computing >>>> with nominal structure, the nominal structure must derive from the notion >>>> of >>>> computation being put forward, i.e. it must *reflect* the notion of >>>> computation<http://svn.biosimilarity.com/src/open/papers/trunk/concurrency/rho/ex_nihilo_entcs/ex_nihilo_finco.pdf>. >>>> This gives rise to all kinds of new an beautiful phenomena. One measure of >>>> your way into compositional thinking is whether this is happening. Is your >>>> approach to compositional thinking beginning to yield whole new aspects of >>>> computing, and new 'wholes' of computation, new forms of organization. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2009/6/16 Oliver Lambert <olambo...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2009/6/17 Meredith Gregory <lgreg.mered...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>> Jeremy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Most excellent question award to you, sir! >>>>>> >>>>>> How to bootstrap thinking compositionally... this is what i did >>>>>> >>>>>> - learn some compositional idioms by heart >>>>>> - do you know the shape of the paradoxical combinator by heart >>>>>> - do you know the data making up a monad >>>>>> - do you know the data making up a distributive law between >>>>>> monads >>>>>> - use them in real world applications and see where they fail >>>>>> - when is calculating the least/greatest fixpoint of a >>>>>> recursive spec for a problem the suboptimal solution >>>>>> - when is a monad not the answer >>>>>> - when is an indexed form of composition inadequate >>>>>> - improve them >>>>>> - is it a situational improvement or >>>>>> - a fundamental improvement >>>>>> - see where the very programming model itself fails >>>>>> - is functional composition the only sort of composition >>>>>> - how is parallel composition like functional composition >>>>>> - is parallel composition easily represented in categorical >>>>>> composition >>>>>> - improve it >>>>>> - what is the view of the world in your notion of composition >>>>>> - play with new programming models >>>>>> - does your new notion of composition give rise to a whole >>>>>> generation of different models >>>>>> - invent new idioms in these models >>>>>> - what are the things these models naturally express >>>>>> - and teach them to someone who wishes to bootstrap thinking >>>>>> compositionally >>>>>> >>>>>> For myself, i was unhappy with the notion of name. The π-calculi and >>>>>> lambda calculi suffer a dependence on a notion of name. Both families of >>>>>> calculi require at least countably infinitely many names, and a notion of >>>>>> equality on names. If names have no internal structure then these >>>>>> theories >>>>>> *cannot be effective*. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do we need to do some sort of course to understand this language? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The reasons is that the notion of equality must then be realized as an >>>>>> infinitary table which cannot fit in any computer we have access to. >>>>>> Therefore, in effective theories, names must have internal structure. >>>>>> Since >>>>>> they have internal structure and are at least countably infinite, one is >>>>>> in >>>>>> danger of undermining the foundational character of these proposals for >>>>>> computing. Therefore, the only possible solution is that the notion of >>>>>> structured name must come from the notion of program proposed by the >>>>>> model. >>>>>> This argument is airtight. If you want a foundational model of computing >>>>>> with nominal structure, the nominal structure must derive from the >>>>>> notion of >>>>>> computation being put forward, i.e. it must *reflect* the notion of >>>>>> computation. This gives rise to all kinds of new an beautiful phenomena. >>>>>> One >>>>>> measure of your way into compositional thinking is whether this is >>>>>> happening. Is your approach to compositional thinking beginning to yield >>>>>> whole new aspects of computing, and new 'wholes' of computation, new >>>>>> forms >>>>>> of organization. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> --greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeremy Day <jeremy....@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Meredith Gregory < >>>>>>> lgreg.mered...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It takes some serious training to think compositionally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No doubt it is extremely tough to think compositionally, and it's all >>>>>>> too easy to fall back on non-compositional ways of thinking. In a >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> vein it's all too easy to fall into procedural patterns when learning or >>>>>>> working with functional programming in a multi-paradigm language. But >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> are good ways for programmers to learn to think compositionally and, >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> importantly, practice? Do you know of any books or online references >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> might help make the transition for anyone who is interested? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jeremy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> L.G. Meredith >>>>>> Managing Partner >>>>>> Biosimilarity LLC >>>>>> 1219 NW 83rd St >>>>>> Seattle, WA 98117 >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 206.650.3740 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> L.G. Meredith >>>> Managing Partner >>>> Biosimilarity LLC >>>> 1219 NW 83rd St >>>> Seattle, WA 98117 >>>> >>>> +1 206.650.3740 >>>> >>>> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> L.G. Meredith >> Managing Partner >> Biosimilarity LLC >> 1219 NW 83rd St >> Seattle, WA 98117 >> >> +1 206.650.3740 >> >> http://biosimilarity.blogspot.com >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lift" group. To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
