3 ms·
> If we accept that, then simplicity alone is not a desirable goal. Agreed. Otherwise, Forth and Scheme would've taken over the world. > Something may well be
by catnaroek 11y ago
> If we accept that, then simplicity alone is not a desirable goal.
Agreed. Otherwise, Forth and Scheme would've taken over the world.
> Something may well be formally simple but at the same time incompatible with human cognition.
Do you have a concrete example?
> (if we wish to view simplicity as possessing a positive value that implies ease of understanding).
I don't particularly fetishize simplicity. What I want is the least effort path to writing correct programs. The following features help:
0. Simplicity - smaller formal systems have less room for nasty surprises.
1. Using the right tool for resource management - sometimes it's a garbage collector, sometimes it's substructural types.
2. Typeful programming - it's an invaluable tool for navigating the logical structure of the problem domain.
- pron 11y ago> Do you have a concrete example? Off the top of my head, and since we're talking about computation, I'd say SK combinator calculus. Or Church numerals. > Typeful programming It is, but it can also be a hindrance. Finding the sweet spot is a matter for empirical study.
- catnaroek 11y ago> I'd say SK combinator calculus. Or Church numerals. They're a PITA to use, but not because they're hard to understand.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoBut for writing actual programs, the complexity of using matters as much as the complexity of understanding. (I recognize that this doesn't invalidate the point you are trying to make in the parent post. They aren't incompatible with human understanding. They're incompatible with writing programs in a reasonable amount of time, though.)
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago> > Something may well be formally simple but at the same time incompatible with human cognition. > Do you have a concrete example? Brainfuck?