5 ms·

> Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I don't think I was being obtuse. I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) the

> Meaningfully doing it by being obtuse and smug... I don't think I was being obtuse. I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) the reaction I got, and decided that it don't mind it.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
...And that should have taught you something: it should have taught you that the language you're using isn't being readily understood, and that you need to either explain it, or change it.
Bjartr 10y ago
Why do you not mind being poorly understood? The goal of effective communication is to have others understand you. Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing?
- catnaroek 10y ago
  > Why do you not mind being poorly understood? What I said I didn't mind is the “ire you are experiencing”. It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. > Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing? I'm pointing to the distinction between values and objects pretty clearly: (0) Objects exist in memory. Values exist in the language's semantics, not in computer memory, but representations of values exist in computer memory. Furthermore, objects exist in memory exactly once, but a value may be represented in memory any number of times. (1) It doesn't make sense to distinguish between representations of the same value. If a program treats two memory blobs differently, their contents represent different values, period. (The converse is not true, of course.) (2) The language implementation has absolute freedom to represent values as it wishes, as long as (1) isn't violated. But this isn't the first time I've said all of this in this thread.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    >It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. Use alternate terminology, or explain yourself the first time you use it in a thread - otherwise, we'll all be confused. I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. This brings to mind another Munroe quote: "You're like the religious zealots who are burdened by their superiority with the sad duty of decrying the obvious moral decay of each new generation. And you're just as wrong."
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      > We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. No, most of the people I've talked to here clearly couldn't see the distinction between a value and its representation. (FWIW, I'm not fully convinced you can see it either.) They're not used to thinking about values without thinking about how they're represented. They're abstraction-challenged. > We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. That's not consistent with some of the things other people have said here. But let's ignore that. What do you call what I call a value? Not that I'm a nominalist, but in practice, I've seen that people don't understand concepts they don't have a name for. (Though I probably have the causality backwards. It would be more accurate to say that, as soon as people understand a new concept, they rush to give it a new name.) > Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. It's not obscure. It's in the operational semantics of any call-by-value language, which for practical purposes means any language other than Haskell. > I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. Well, it's not like you have to deal with me if you don't want to. You do so out of your own volition. shrug
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
        There's a differance between being abstraction challenged and wishing to understand the abstraction. We don't have a name for what you call values, as they're either irrelevant, or nonexistant in most contexts, and barely mentioned. However, we can't call them values, as that name is taken. Most CBV languages call them atoms, but that doesn't fit because they aren't necessarily atomic. Let's try... Symbolic value? It seems to work: a given symbolic value represents all other equivalent symbolic values, and it's value that behaves like the symbol type in most languages. So that works unless it's already taken. The point is, your definition of value needs a name that doesn't collide with the names of similar concepts and ideas. It doesn't really matter what it is. Unfortunately, this is one name clash that gensym can't handle for us. :-)
tome 10y ago
> I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) If you're going to argue here about programming languages terminology it behooves you get terminology from other fields correct.
- catnaroek 10y ago
  I got the terminology right. The term “value” means what I mean by it, not what qwerty means by it. Check TAPL, pages 34 and 57.
  - tome 10y ago
    I'm talking about "expectation".
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      Oh, sorry. I was implicitly making the following assumptions: (0) Reactions can be quantified - assigned numerical values, roughly corresponding to our intuition of a “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” reaction. (1) The possible reactions can be meaningfully averaged, and the result can be interpreted as a reaction value as well. So by “expectation”, I meant “expected value”, in the usual sense. If your objection is that “expectation” can't be used as this, I have evidence that suggests otherwise: (0) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/readings/MIT18_05S14_Reading6a.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to... (1) https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf
      - tome 10y ago
        It's rather non-standard to say "I expected" in this sense but since you've gone to the trouble to define your terminology and back up your claim, fair enough!
        qwertyuiop924 10y ago

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

...And that should have taught you something: it should have taught you that the language you're using isn't being readily understood, and that you need to either explain it, or change it.

Bjartr 10y ago

Why do you not mind being poorly understood? The goal of effective communication is to have others understand you. Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing?

catnaroek 10y ago
> Why do you not mind being poorly understood? What I said I didn't mind is the “ire you are experiencing”. It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. > Since you're not trying to communicate effectively, what exactly is it that you think you are doing? I'm pointing to the distinction between values and objects pretty clearly: (0) Objects exist in memory. Values exist in the language's semantics, not in computer memory, but representations of values exist in computer memory. Furthermore, objects exist in memory exactly once, but a value may be represented in memory any number of times. (1) It doesn't make sense to distinguish between representations of the same value. If a program treats two memory blobs differently, their contents represent different values, period. (The converse is not true, of course.) (2) The language implementation has absolute freedom to represent values as it wishes, as long as (1) isn't violated. But this isn't the first time I've said all of this in this thread.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  >It somewhat saddens me that programmers, supposedly logical thinkers, can't see the distinction between a value and an object. We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. Use alternate terminology, or explain yourself the first time you use it in a thread - otherwise, we'll all be confused. I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. This brings to mind another Munroe quote: "You're like the religious zealots who are burdened by their superiority with the sad duty of decrying the obvious moral decay of each new generation. And you're just as wrong."
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    > We can see the distinction, we just don't use the same terminology you use. No, most of the people I've talked to here clearly couldn't see the distinction between a value and its representation. (FWIW, I'm not fully convinced you can see it either.) They're not used to thinking about values without thinking about how they're represented. They're abstraction-challenged. > We use standard terminology by which what you call an object is a value. That's not consistent with some of the things other people have said here. But let's ignore that. What do you call what I call a value? Not that I'm a nominalist, but in practice, I've seen that people don't understand concepts they don't have a name for. (Though I probably have the causality backwards. It would be more accurate to say that, as soon as people understand a new concept, they rush to give it a new name.) > Your definition of the terms only shows up in an obscure part of FP, which is still a bit obscure in itself. It's not obscure. It's in the operational semantics of any call-by-value language, which for practical purposes means any language other than Haskell. > I've tried to point this out to you at least three times, and I'm losing my patience. Well, it's not like you have to deal with me if you don't want to. You do so out of your own volition. shrug
    - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
      There's a differance between being abstraction challenged and wishing to understand the abstraction. We don't have a name for what you call values, as they're either irrelevant, or nonexistant in most contexts, and barely mentioned. However, we can't call them values, as that name is taken. Most CBV languages call them atoms, but that doesn't fit because they aren't necessarily atomic. Let's try... Symbolic value? It seems to work: a given symbolic value represents all other equivalent symbolic values, and it's value that behaves like the symbol type in most languages. So that works unless it's already taken. The point is, your definition of value needs a name that doesn't collide with the names of similar concepts and ideas. It doesn't really matter what it is. Unfortunately, this is one name clash that gensym can't handle for us. :-)

tome 10y ago

> I just expected (in the statistical sense of the term “expectation”) If you're going to argue here about programming languages terminology it behooves you get terminology from other fields correct.

catnaroek 10y ago
I got the terminology right. The term “value” means what I mean by it, not what qwerty means by it. Check TAPL, pages 34 and 57.
- tome 10y ago
  I'm talking about "expectation".
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    Oh, sorry. I was implicitly making the following assumptions: (0) Reactions can be quantified - assigned numerical values, roughly corresponding to our intuition of a “positive”, “neutral” or “negative” reaction. (1) The possible reactions can be meaningfully averaged, and the result can be interpreted as a reaction value as well. So by “expectation”, I meant “expected value”, in the usual sense. If your objection is that “expectation” can't be used as this, I have evidence that suggests otherwise: (0) http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to-probability-and-statistics-spring-2014/readings/MIT18_05S14_Reading6a.pdf http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-05-introduction-to... (1) https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf https://www3.nd.edu/~rwilliam/stats1/x12.pdf
    - tome 10y ago
      It's rather non-standard to say "I expected" in this sense but since you've gone to the trouble to define your terminology and back up your claim, fair enough!
      - qwertyuiop924 10y ago