- Original Message -
From: K. K. Subramaniam subb...@gmail.com
To: fonc@vpri.org
Cc: BGB cr88...@hotmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 9:47 PM
Subject: Re: [fonc] goals
On Wednesday 14 Jul 2010 9:25:11 am BGB wrote:
there is much emphasis on people understanding an entire
On 14 July 2010 10:49, Antoine van Gelder anto...@g7.org.za wrote:
Questions such as how do we define a downward trajectory? or
which direction is simple in? or even how can we even possibly hope
to measure simple?!
There is nothing hard about simplification per se. I don't think I've
made a
On 14 July 2010 00:01, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.com wrote:
[1] http://www.cs.stir.ac.uk/~kjt/techreps/pdf/TR141.pdf FOR FUN: Where is
the bug here? The authors claim they are measuring the *economic*
expressiveness of languages.
I think I don't really follow you here (you seem in a
Well, you're right. The way I phrased it isn't at all proper. I meant the
authors were using economy of expression [1] as their metric. In
programming languages lingo, the phrase more expressive the authors use is
co-opting the meaning of expressive as defined by Felleisen's expressiveness
Julian Leviston wrote:
This is essentially what I refer to when I talk about planck size of
algorithms. You can't get any simpler than a certain size and therefore not
only is it incredibly understandable, it simply won't break.
Say we have a Maximum Length Sequence constructed using a
I think it is mostly because the internet is composed of well-defined /
agreed-upon protocols and data formats.
each part is largely decoupled from the others. it sends and accepts data, and
it responds to whatever is happening.
often, the protocols are very much layered, with most layers not
