3 ms·

So what is an example of an intermediate state in a human being?

dahart 8y ago
What do you mean? I’m talking about the program’s intermediate state, not the human’s. Humans respond to the program, then give it new inputs, then the program outputs a new intermediate state, then the human responds again, and so on. This loop is fundamentally different than reading a static file that doesn’t change or depend on the state of the program.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Well, then swap a file for an ethernet socket and voila - it's unpredictable, too.
  - dahart 8y ago
    You are still missing the critical piece. The reason a file is different than a human is that everything in the file is known in advance, whereas the human reacts to the program. It’s not just about unpredictability, it’s also about the dependency. The human input is not decided until the program displays it’s intermediate state, and when the human does send input to the program, the input is based on what the human sees, which is the program’s intermediate state. So, the human input depends on the intermediate state. A file input does not depend on the program’s intermediate state. The file input is a static queue of data that doesn’t change. If you change the program, the file won’t change, but the human input will. A queue of commands in a file is fixed, and showing the program’s output doesn’t affect which command comes next from the file. The human input is a function of time and also of the program’s intermediate state, and lastly of the human’s whims. These things force the program’s evaluation loop with human input into a specific order that cannot be evaluated or re-ordered or simplified in advance, unlike the file. Is that making more sense now? All of this is exactly what the author of the article was talking about when he discussed weak vs strong composition. Do you understand what he meant by functional composition being stronger than Von Neumann composition, and why?

What do you mean? I’m talking about the program’s intermediate state, not the human’s. Humans respond to the program, then give it new inputs, then the program outputs a new intermediate state, then the human responds again, and so on. This loop is fundamentally different than reading a static file that doesn’t change or depend on the state of the program.

heavenlyblue 8y ago
Well, then swap a file for an ethernet socket and voila - it's unpredictable, too.
- dahart 8y ago
  You are still missing the critical piece. The reason a file is different than a human is that everything in the file is known in advance, whereas the human reacts to the program. It’s not just about unpredictability, it’s also about the dependency. The human input is not decided until the program displays it’s intermediate state, and when the human does send input to the program, the input is based on what the human sees, which is the program’s intermediate state. So, the human input depends on the intermediate state. A file input does not depend on the program’s intermediate state. The file input is a static queue of data that doesn’t change. If you change the program, the file won’t change, but the human input will. A queue of commands in a file is fixed, and showing the program’s output doesn’t affect which command comes next from the file. The human input is a function of time and also of the program’s intermediate state, and lastly of the human’s whims. These things force the program’s evaluation loop with human input into a specific order that cannot be evaluated or re-ordered or simplified in advance, unlike the file. Is that making more sense now? All of this is exactly what the author of the article was talking about when he discussed weak vs strong composition. Do you understand what he meant by functional composition being stronger than Von Neumann composition, and why?