4 ms·
Could you expand on this? I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that there are levels of abstraction in programming that can’t be modelled mathem
by chongli 7y ago
Could you expand on this? I’m not quite sure what you mean. Are you suggesting that there are levels of abstraction in programming that can’t be modelled mathematically?
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoLet's say I'm working on a user interface. Thinking of it in terms of lambda calculus instead of user interaction is... let's call it sub-optimal, even though the code can be thought of in terms of lambda calculus. Now, you can come up with some metrics to mathematically analyze certain aspects of the user interaction. I don't think that's what garganzol was talking about, though.
- chongli 7y agoyou can come up with some metrics to mathematically analyze certain aspects of the user interaction And we have done that! Fitts’ law [1] gives us a very good way of quantifying certain aspects of user interface design. I can’t tell you how many UIs I’ve used (lost count) that have ignored this very basic principle and as a result they’re extremely frustrating to use. In any case, it may not be what garganzol was talking about, but it did resemble a comment I’ve seen made many times. In the vast majority of cases I’ve seen, people who claim that math is inapplicable to some problem are completely unaware of a rich and storied field of mathematics dedicated to that topic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoSure. But like TheRealPomax said, that's a different level of abstraction. If you need to be thinking in terms of Fitts' Law, and you're thinking of your code in terms of lambda calculus-level math, you're going to have a rough time.