I've been reading Roy and Haridi's Concepts, Techniques, and Models of
Computer Programming [1], and I see it as a great practical approach to
VPRI's ideas on the principles of programming languages. Is there anyone
more autoritative here who could chime in on the intellectual connection (if
there
... what criteria should apply [to complexity] and why one ranks
higher than another.
Don't have a chance to look up the source, but Dijkstra has a
wonderful observation about every implementation of a solution in CS
includes two kinds of complexity: that intrinsic to the problem, and
that
... what criteria should apply [to complexity] and why one ranks higher
than another.
Ack, please forgive the copy/paste fumble. I found the source of Dijkstra's
observation, and it seems I had added quite a bit of my own conclusions. His
was:
For us scientists it is very tempting to blame
John,
Have you been able to find any good definitions for your use of
trustworthiness? The wikipedia article
about trustworthy computing [1] makes it sound like something which
originated in Microsoft's marketing department.
Using intuitive definitions, the three metrics you mention seem to
be
Considering the ambition of the project relative to its resources, I think
it's reasonable for STEPS to keep a low profile and spend less effort on
educating than one might like.
That said, I'd appreciate a simple suggested reading list for independent
study - in my case, for someone with an
daniel.amel...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Andrey Fedorov anfedo...@gmail.com
wrote:
Considering the ambition of the project relative to its resources, I
think
it's reasonable for STEPS to keep a low profile and spend less effort on
educating than one might like
Also available in non-proprietary format via your browser
herehttp://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/toddpro/papers/disruptive.ppt
.
Cheers,
Andrey
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Dirk Muysers dmuys...@hotmail.com wrote:
Everybody in this discussion
It's a must in a hyperbolic sense - Dirk is just excited about a good
presentation. I think any idea that encourages attempts at discovering
perspectives different from those in fashion is important - this
presentation falls into that category.
Cheers,
Andrey
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:18 AM,
John Zabroski wrote:
the three stumbling blocks are size, complexity and trustworthiness
How are these different?
A small program is a simple program by definition, assuming it's expressed
in an intuitively comprehensible way. And a simple program is a program I
can trust to do what I think
...@fifthace.com wrote:
On Mar 2, 2010, at 3:18 PM, Andrey Fedorov wrote:
John Zabroski wrote:
the three stumbling blocks are size, complexity and trustworthiness
How are these different?
A small program is a simple program by definition, assuming it's
expressed in an intuitively
sure you
know what topology is?
Cheers,
Andrey
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Wesley Smith wesley.h...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Andrey Fedorov anfedo...@gmail.com
wrote:
John Zabroski wrote:
the three stumbling blocks are size, complexity and trustworthiness
How
of complexity is a idiotic exercise in futility - leave
it to the philosophy undergrads.
John Zabroski wrote:
Andrey Fedorov wrote:
Let me be explicit. Here is my model: [...]
This is wrong, of course.
A model is a bunch of definitions - I defined the inter-dependence of
arbitrary terms size
The picture you gave isn't a system, it's a directed graph. I guess you're
implying anything you imagine to be a system can be represented as a graph
- but what *is* a system?
Also, you can define the complexity of a graph in any way you like. Until
you show that this definition is somehow
Michael Arnoldus wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 15:50 , John Zabroski wrote:
There are many *forms* of complexity and using just one *metric* seems
silly to me.
Makes sense.
So you suggest we should keep saying complexity without specifying which
kind we're talking about? No! Pick one form of
Alejandro Garcia wrote:
Andrey Fedorov wrote:
The picture you gave isn't a system, it's a directed graph. I guess
you're implying anything you imagine to be a system can be represented as
a graph - but what *is* a system?
Well it isn't a system in the same sense that a map isn't
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 4:56 PM, John Zabroski johnzabro...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Andrey Fedorov anfedo...@gmail.comwrote:
If we *do** *want to define complexity, we could put a constraint on
these CRT graphs, like nodes have no state? This is starting to smell like
Thanks for the recommendation Felix, Alan.
On Mar 5 Alejandro Garcia wrote:
Andrey this is what I mean when I say sytem B has only two states: [...]
Two questions and a comment:
Q1 - the way you're reasoning about it makes directed edges
seem unnecessary. Why not just use undirected edges?
On Mar 7 Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
How hard is this to understand? depends on the processor, the person
who tries to understand it.
Exactly: her familiarity with the language, and the programming style, etc.
Lots of variables, so I suggest we fix some as constants:
- the programmer is
Julian Leviston wrote:
As Self and Smalltalk have tried to point out to us, make programming SO
EASY that it is the SAME THING as using the computer.
But it *is* the same thing, by definition. The only difference is in the
interfaces: GMail a specialized/simple interface, a C compiler is a
Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net wrote:
To restate my point, simply: programming computers is not as easy as using
them, and using them is not even as easy or useful as it could be.
Don't get me wrong - I completely understand your intuition. I have it too.
But beware! Intuition weighs
I've noticed the word artifact used in a similar sense as system, with
no overly obvious distinction [1]. One that comes to mind is an artifact
being something we're considering in relation to its human origins, and
system being something we are considering in terms of finding an optimal
there are people who read this list and website who may not feel qualified
to participate much but none the less rely on them as a vital source of
information
Fellow lurker here. Thanks for pointing that out! Still, e-mails that say
simply +1, me too, or I agree are a pain to receive on
22 matches
Mail list logo
