5 ms·

This man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and ot

by zv 16y ago

This man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and others.

jimmyjim 16y ago
It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding. Wisdom is certainly something to take from, but embodying the limits imposed by someone as a roadblock to onself isn't the way to innovation.
- xtho 16y ago
  > It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that [...] sometimes end up succeeding. Please name some examples. How often is sometimes? What is their probability of success compared to that of domain experts?
  - weego 16y ago
    Will get pointed up but just smacks of passive-agressive argumental. History, specifically in science and math is full of examples where people who actively sought to question the knowledge of more senior experts have made discoveries that advanced the knowledge of human-kind and have then been overlooked or ignored because they did not have the correct background. Institutions such as The Royal Society and The Geological Society where created exactly on this principle. The idea that "you cannot question X because X is a learned man above your station" is what IMO destroys general interest in fields such as physics. You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that one day you will be given enough rope to actually challenge anything. How on earth would you put probability on something like that?
    - xtho 16y ago
      The existence of a black swan doesn't imply that swans are usually black. A. "There are examples where newcomers to a field found a novel solution that senior experts have missed." B. "It is often the ignorant who succeeds." B does not follow from A. Not even in mathematics where people use to say that you have to prove yourself worthwhile by the age of 25 or it won't happen. > You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that ... This is a slightly different discussion but IMHO in many fields (e.g. medicine) contemporary science has little to do with genious or insight but rather is an industrial effort ... and that _often_ isn't fun.
      - danio 16y ago
        A lesson on logic from somebody who equates "It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding" to "It is often the ignorant who succeeds" seems ironic to put it mildly.
        xtho 16y ago
        :-)
  - presidentender 16y ago
    I can think of one: http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp?a http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp?a
    - xtho 16y ago
      From the page: "George Bernard Dantzig, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. ... George Dantzig (himself the son of a mathematician) received a Bachelor's degree from University of Maryland in 1936 and a Master's from the University of Michigan in 1937." Not exactly my definition of somebody ignorant.
      - gruseom 16y ago
        Certainly not, but he was ignorant of the most important fact, that these were unsolved problems. This is one of the greatest stories ever. If it weren't true it would have to have been invented... but it is true.
        Retric 16y ago
        Just because someone does not know a solution to a given problem does not mean they think it's impossible. The teacher gave the problem as examples of something that seems solvable but nobody has a correct solution to. Then someone with a lot of domain knowledge spent some time and solved it. IMO, that’s says more about the value of domain knowledge than tenacity. It's not like they spent 20 years comming up with a solution. PS: There are a lot of long standing math problems which people have spent vary little time trying to solve.
        presidentender 16y ago
        He was ignorant of the fact that the problems were supposed to be impossible. That's in line with the parent comment's sentiment.
        Retric 16y ago
  - tedunangst 16y ago
    The model of the atom that was popular before the current model. The model of the atom that was popular before that one. The model of the atom before..., ok you get the point. If you'd like more, A Short History Of Everything by Bill Bryson is about 600 pages of examples.
- hasenj 16y ago
  Let's suppose it's a really easy problem to solve. Why the hell would anyone want to program in a natural language? Suppose you could write a kernel in such a language, and one of the instructions was: "Load the first 5 bits at address 0x323abc into the last 5 bits after address 0x89bbca" Now, wouldn't it be easier to say 'shuffle_bits(5, 0x232abc, 0x89bbca);' where you control precisely what 'shuffle_bits' does?
  - mlinsey 16y ago
    Obviously you wouldn't write kernels. You would write the equivalent of shell scripts for ordinary users. Imagine if ordinary users could automate their daily workflow or customize MS Word as much as vim or emacs users do with their editors.
  - noglorp 16y ago
    copy the time field from cpuinfo to temp_time' backup the low 5 bits of goodnameformemorylocation' locA's low 5 to locb's low 5' Seems like there are a fair number of nice representations. Context is obviously important though: in a kernel, you probably want fairly implicit ways of referring to bits.
    - gaius 16y ago
      That is basically what COBOL looks like.
  - DougBTX 16y ago
    Or even: load_first_five_bits_into(0x323abc) load_last_five_bits_into(0x89bbca) Or if you do mappings a lot, I'm sure I saw an IP packet parser based on syntax like this: [----5----|----n----|----5----] [0x323abc |void |0x89bbca ]
  - cracki 16y ago
    you're actively trying to destroy the idea of natural language programming. you'll succeed because the idea itself means nothing unless someone implements it. natural language programming means that you, as the human, concentrate on high-level aspects while the machine fills in the blanks (stuff you don't care about). natural language programming... it's supposed to be a dialogue, not a specification. you say a few words and the machine creates a formal representation of that. then you're free to alter the assumptions made by the machine. you're shaping something in broad strokes. you're designing something. you don't actually code something. you get your own private code monkey, you get to talk to him, explain your design, let him do the typing, and intervene when needed. now, that code monkey could be a machine. i guess it takes a certain mindset to accept and rely on others (also machines) to do the grunt work. i certainly don't want to be doing repetitive grunt work if i could help it. it's fun now and then, when i have the choice. it stops being fun if i have to do it.

by zv 16y ago

This man knows about programming languages way more than most of us. Listen to him. I bet it isn't the first time he has this discussion. See: Algol, Ada and others.

jimmyjim 16y ago

It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding. Wisdom is certainly something to take from, but embodying the limits imposed by someone as a roadblock to onself isn't the way to innovation.

xtho 16y ago
> It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that [...] sometimes end up succeeding. Please name some examples. How often is sometimes? What is their probability of success compared to that of domain experts?
- weego 16y ago
  Will get pointed up but just smacks of passive-agressive argumental. History, specifically in science and math is full of examples where people who actively sought to question the knowledge of more senior experts have made discoveries that advanced the knowledge of human-kind and have then been overlooked or ignored because they did not have the correct background. Institutions such as The Royal Society and The Geological Society where created exactly on this principle. The idea that "you cannot question X because X is a learned man above your station" is what IMO destroys general interest in fields such as physics. You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that one day you will be given enough rope to actually challenge anything. How on earth would you put probability on something like that?
  - xtho 16y ago
    The existence of a black swan doesn't imply that swans are usually black. A. "There are examples where newcomers to a field found a novel solution that senior experts have missed." B. "It is often the ignorant who succeeds." B does not follow from A. Not even in mathematics where people use to say that you have to prove yourself worthwhile by the age of 25 or it won't happen. > You have to spend a career following the party line in the hope that ... This is a slightly different discussion but IMHO in many fields (e.g. medicine) contemporary science has little to do with genious or insight but rather is an industrial effort ... and that _often_ isn't fun.
    - danio 16y ago
      A lesson on logic from somebody who equates "It's often the foolhardy and the ignorant that tackle problems that are supposedly impossible. And sometimes end up succeeding" to "It is often the ignorant who succeeds" seems ironic to put it mildly.
      - xtho 16y ago
        :-)
- presidentender 16y ago
  I can think of one: http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp?a http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp?a
  - xtho 16y ago
    From the page: "George Bernard Dantzig, a doctoral candidate at the University of California, Berkeley. ... George Dantzig (himself the son of a mathematician) received a Bachelor's degree from University of Maryland in 1936 and a Master's from the University of Michigan in 1937." Not exactly my definition of somebody ignorant.
    - gruseom 16y ago
      Certainly not, but he was ignorant of the most important fact, that these were unsolved problems. This is one of the greatest stories ever. If it weren't true it would have to have been invented... but it is true.
      - Retric 16y ago
        Just because someone does not know a solution to a given problem does not mean they think it's impossible. The teacher gave the problem as examples of something that seems solvable but nobody has a correct solution to. Then someone with a lot of domain knowledge spent some time and solved it. IMO, that’s says more about the value of domain knowledge than tenacity. It's not like they spent 20 years comming up with a solution. PS: There are a lot of long standing math problems which people have spent vary little time trying to solve.
        presidentender 16y ago
        He was ignorant of the fact that the problems were supposed to be impossible. That's in line with the parent comment's sentiment.
        Retric 16y ago
- tedunangst 16y ago
  The model of the atom that was popular before the current model. The model of the atom that was popular before that one. The model of the atom before..., ok you get the point. If you'd like more, A Short History Of Everything by Bill Bryson is about 600 pages of examples.
hasenj 16y ago
Let's suppose it's a really easy problem to solve. Why the hell would anyone want to program in a natural language? Suppose you could write a kernel in such a language, and one of the instructions was: "Load the first 5 bits at address 0x323abc into the last 5 bits after address 0x89bbca" Now, wouldn't it be easier to say 'shuffle_bits(5, 0x232abc, 0x89bbca);' where you control precisely what 'shuffle_bits' does?
- mlinsey 16y ago
  Obviously you wouldn't write kernels. You would write the equivalent of shell scripts for ordinary users. Imagine if ordinary users could automate their daily workflow or customize MS Word as much as vim or emacs users do with their editors.
- noglorp 16y ago
  copy the time field from cpuinfo to temp_time' backup the low 5 bits of goodnameformemorylocation' locA's low 5 to locb's low 5' Seems like there are a fair number of nice representations. Context is obviously important though: in a kernel, you probably want fairly implicit ways of referring to bits.
  - gaius 16y ago
    That is basically what COBOL looks like.
- DougBTX 16y ago
  Or even: load_first_five_bits_into(0x323abc) load_last_five_bits_into(0x89bbca) Or if you do mappings a lot, I'm sure I saw an IP packet parser based on syntax like this: [----5----|----n----|----5----] [0x323abc |void |0x89bbca ]
- cracki 16y ago
  you're actively trying to destroy the idea of natural language programming. you'll succeed because the idea itself means nothing unless someone implements it. natural language programming means that you, as the human, concentrate on high-level aspects while the machine fills in the blanks (stuff you don't care about). natural language programming... it's supposed to be a dialogue, not a specification. you say a few words and the machine creates a formal representation of that. then you're free to alter the assumptions made by the machine. you're shaping something in broad strokes. you're designing something. you don't actually code something. you get your own private code monkey, you get to talk to him, explain your design, let him do the typing, and intervene when needed. now, that code monkey could be a machine. i guess it takes a certain mindset to accept and rely on others (also machines) to do the grunt work. i certainly don't want to be doing repetitive grunt work if i could help it. it's fun now and then, when i have the choice. it stops being fun if i have to do it.